Gawrsh! – Deletion overturned to no consensus. – IronGargoyle (talk) 01:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

No consensus to delete this redirect that is in the category catchphrases and there was data showing it is the canonical spelling of the catchphrase Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no consensus because there wasn't one.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus, while there was a decent consensus to delete some of the other catchphrase redirects (particularly those with arbitrary spellings), there was no such consensus here, and the general consensus elsewhere cannot really be seen to apply given the strong evidence for this being a specific, canonical spelling. ~ mazca ^talk 11:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleted - the arguments to delete were much more solid and intelligent than those to retain this adolescent and frankly incomprehensible redirect. ... Hmmm, now what's that character that says gawrsh with a superfluous 'w' and followed by an exclamation point....? Yea right. Eusebeus (talk) 13:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The references provided show it is the canonical spelling. It is no different than Do'h! or any other nonsensical catchphrase, they don't have to make sense, just have the one, or possibly a few, spellings used by reliable media. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The argument was "non-intuitive, [and] obscurely spelled". Albany as the capital of New York in non intuitive, and the spelling of Mississippi and Massachusetts are obscure, yet they are accurate and verifiable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no consensus, because there clearly was no consensus, and no basis given for disregarding the expression of community opinion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus !votes are balanced and arguments to delete not stronger than to keep. Hobit (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - as nominator. Arguments against the redirect are based directly on WP:RFD, while arguments in favor do not answer the obscurity issue and in one instance is based on a personal essay. RFD is not a vote and DRV is not RFD round two. Otto4711 (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the evidence that this is the canonical spelling per:

"Gawrsh! Goofy and Elmo Are Wanted for Robbery" in New York Times - Aug 15, 2000
"Gawrsh! Goofy's Right on the Money! Disneyland to Print Pastel ...
"Gawrsh! Goofy's good Fort Worth Star-Telegram" in Fort Worth Star-Telegram - Apr 13, 1995

You may not have heard of it, but at least do a Google search. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It remains a non-intuitive and obscure search term because it's extremely doubtful that there's anyone who can't remember "Goofy" but can remember "G-A-W-R-S-H-exclamation point". Even assuming that there actually is someone who can't remember "Goofy" but can remember "Gawrsh!", searching for Gawrsh! yields Goofy as the second result. The redirect is not useful, the arguments against it were based on the redirect deletion guideline and this all remains second-bite-at-the-apple argumentation. Do some people disagree with the closing admin? Yes. Was the close outside the discretion of the closing admin? Absolutely not. And...you know what I did and didn't Google how exactly? Otto4711 (talk) 13:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is 100% subjective, a bit a crystal balling, and pure speculation. All should be avoided. We shouldn't speculate on what terms people use to search, since its just a guess. We don't delete all the articles that are obscure or under-read. What your saying is you find it not intuitive, yet it is canonical spelling, and is linked in 4 other articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment - RAN waited a whopping three minutes after asking the closing admin about the deletion before opening this DRV. He has not since notified the closing admin about this DRV. RAN has been around more than long enough to know exactly how abusive of process this is. Is trying to restore this redirect really so important that the closing admin could not be allowed an opportunity to respond or be notified of the discussion? Otto4711 (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a requirement. Some people think it's a "courtesy guideline", but I'm not one of them. We don't need notify an article's creator when nominating for AfD, right? Same logic at DRV.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He refused to consider restoration when asked, and wrote me that "one of the keep votes just cited some random person's essay, which really had no value in the discussion, so it was more of a 2d-1k situation. RfD's not a vote, and the deleters had better rationales."

Step 3 of the instructions for listing a DRV is to notify the closing admin. It says nothing about its being an optional step or a courtesy. Contrast that with AFD instructions, which merely state that it is considered courteous to notify the article creator. As far as the closer's rationale provided above (I assume by RAN), it is a perfectly reasonable and valid reading of the discussion, technically correct in every point. No new information has been provided here indicating that anything's changed. The majority of the "overturn" comments here are RFD round two. Otto4711 (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a recent discussion about this very issue on the DRV talk page.
Nominating something for DRV is not disruptive behaviour. The closer of the AfD is not the "gatekeeper" for DRV. If you're unhappy with a close, you can bring it here without jumping through any hoops. Contacting the closer is highly recommended, but it's not a requirement.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the instructions at the top of this page does it say that notifying the closing admin is optional? Otto4711 (talk) 13:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn as Keep Reliable and verifiable sources were provided to show that the term is used as a reference to Goofy, while arguments for deletion amounted to "is not". There was no consensus for deletion here. Alansohn (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. One editor saying keep simply linked to an essay about 'More redirects being better', which is hardly a policy based reason. Other than that I do not see that the arguments for Keep, 'beat' the arguments to Delete. Well within the bounds of admin disgression. Quantpole (talk) 09:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some unconstructive wrangling and accusations of bad faith hatted here—take it to dispute resolution please folks

It's good to see you branching out. Instead of mischaracterizing arguments to guidelines as "I hate it" you switched to "is not". It's still a complete mischaracterization of the arguments but at least it's variety. Otto4711 (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otto, you do realize that your personal attacks accomplish nothing and only do further harm to you and your reputation. If you have absolutely nothing to say other than to attack another editor, why bother responding and further building a track record of incivility? Alansohn (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And on cue, we have the incivility/personal attack canard in place of actually addressing the statement that you are misrepresenting the opinions of others when you dismiss arguments that are based in procedural guidelines with a flippant comment like "it's not". You constantly, constantly do this and whenever you are called on it you immediately play the "stop picking on me!" card, as if when it suits your purposes the fabled civility you demand from everyone else doesn't go right out your window. And it is irrelevant to this process whether there exist sources which confirm that Goofy says "gawrsh" since the question here is whether the closing admin acted appropriately in closing the CFD. Otto4711 (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otto, pipe down please, you started the finger pointing and are adding fuel to the flames. Disruptive behaviour and drama-mongering are not appreciated at DRV and will damage your case. More then one nomination as been closed early because of misbehaviour. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otto, please. You stated above that "it is irrelevant to this process whether there exist sources which confirm that Goofy says "gawrsh" since the question here is whether the closing admin acted appropriately in closing the CFD". I did directly address the RfD discussion, emphasizing in the past tense that "Reliable and verifiable sources were provided to show that the term is used as a reference to Goofy" and stated that there was no consensus for deletion in the discussion that took place. Even if the sources had never been provided at RfD, the WP:DRV process is intended to be used where editors "have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate". Reliable and verifiable sources are always relevant. I have addressed my justification under policy, showing why there were strong arguments for retention and no consensus for deletion, and "since the question here is whether the closing admin acted appropriately in closing the CFD" I'm far from the only editor here who sees problems here with this close. In turn, all you've done is toss out uncivil personal attacks. It's well past time that your ceaseless argumentative personal attacks end once and for all. Alansohn (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relist for further discussion. That was not a consensus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep – I think Norton made a compelling argument to keep the redirect there despite the other two users who favored deletion. MuZemike 19:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus, basically per Mazca. Joe (talk) 00:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep Actually, the delete was the one that failed to address the points made by the above keep !voter--An assertion of obscurity in the face of reliable sourcing should hold no weight. Jclemens (talk) 03:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted, reasons for deletion were based in policy and reasons for keeping were not. Stifle (talk) 11:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Providing multiple reliable and verifiable sources to show that this is a standard spelling of a term used to refer to the character is somehow not based on policy, but the rebutted deletion argument "non-intuitive, obscurely spelled and punctuated search term" somehow is? That there is so much trouble understanding and interpreting policy, especially by admins, is behind so many of the problems at Wikipedia. Alansohn (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as a reasonable redirect. --NE2 18:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Take it one step at a time – relisted – Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Take it one step at a time (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Closing admin participated in the review before closing the review; this is forbidden. The admin involved claimed that he hadn't used his admin powers as if this made it all right, but I checked the policy, and it's illegal for users to comment and close a review as well. Additionally, the review was closed very, very early but nobody even voted for speedy delete. I complained to the admin involved, but he then additionally claimed that the topic was not verifiable. However he had redirected the page to a wikipedia article about a book on the subject; one the article already referred to. According to the AFD policy admins are not to be all three of: judge, jury and executioner. - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and relist. Closer appears to have participated in the AfD, and then closed six days early as a "redirect", disregarding the debate participants (none of whom had actually recommended a redirect) in the process.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and relist. Participant in debate closed discussion far too early to a result not supported by any of the other !votes. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and relist. Closer has participated in the debate, and has not even supported the close (which does not say where the redirect goes). Also the redirect is not appropriate. One of the most bizarre closes I am yet to see. Occuli (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and relist as an entirely inappropriate close and User:Cobaltbluetony overstepped his bounds. There is no CSD for this so a speedy is invalid. That said, the deletion of an article on this topic is pretty much a forgone conclusion. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 19:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Possibly... However the wikipedia does have: Category:Phrases which is reasonably extensive.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment: After reviewing the AfD policies I see that I was not in keeping with how these things should be handled. I wasn't entirely comfortable with WP:SNOW either, but for the sake of beating a dead horse, I'll relist this and allow the consensus on this topic to play out as I expect it to. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Take it one step at a time – relisted – Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Closing admin participated in the review before closing the review; this is forbidden. The admin involved claimed that he hadn't used his admin powers as if this made it all right, but I checked the policy, and it's illegal for users to comment and close a review as well. Additionally, the review was closed very, very early but nobody even voted for speedy delete. I complained to the admin involved, but he then additionally claimed that the topic was not verifiable. However he had redirected the page to a wikipedia article about a book on the subject; one the article already referred to. According to the AFD policy admins are not to be all three of: judge, jury and executioner. - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and relist. Closer appears to have participated in the AfD, and then closed six days early as a "redirect", disregarding the debate participants (none of whom had actually recommended a redirect) in the process.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. Participant in debate closed discussion far too early to a result not supported by any of the other !votes. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. Closer has participated in the debate, and has not even supported the close (which does not say where the redirect goes). Also the redirect is not appropriate. One of the most bizarre closes I am yet to see. Occuli (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist as an entirely inappropriate close and User:Cobaltbluetony overstepped his bounds. There is no CSD for this so a speedy is invalid. That said, the deletion of an article on this topic is pretty much a forgone conclusion. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 19:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly... However the wikipedia does have: Category:Phrases which is reasonably extensive.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: After reviewing the AfD policies I see that I was not in keeping with how these things should be handled. I wasn't entirely comfortable with WP:SNOW either, but for the sake of beating a dead horse, I'll relist this and allow the consensus on this topic to play out as I expect it to. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.