Massachusetts Academy (comics) – Decision endorsed – T. Canens (talk) 00:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Massachusetts Academy (comics) (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) This is the sort of close which should not be carried out by a non-admin. While at face value, it appears that there is a consensus to keep, this consensus can in this sort of case be over-rided by the global consensus against these sorts of articles - see, for instance, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baxter Building which was on a very similar fictional element. The policies concerned are WP:GNG, WP:PLOT and WP:BKD, and I feel very strongly that while there may be a case for keeping this article, the fact that there are no policy based arguments to keep means that this closure was inappropriate. While a merge is a possibility, I think there is a case for simply deleting this article, seeing as there's plenty of coverage of it at Hellfire_Club_(comics)#Massachusetts_Academy. I therefore think that this closure may need to be reconsidered. Claritas § 20:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Could you please provide a link to your discussion with the closer before you started this DRV? I can only find your notice of this DRV on his talk page. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Well, a discussion was not started, I got the FYI to come here only. You are welcome to request reconsideration, but there was support for the long established content, which is mostly a list format, the content factuality is not as I saw disputed, the issue is that it is primarily sourced, in my summary I mentioned the merger and suggested further discussion on the talkpage. There was only one delete vote comment, from the person that is asking for the review. There were four clear supports vote comment, including two experienced Administrators, the nominator was neutral after he disputed the prod nomination by Claritas. I understood the citation issue and considering the comments suggested the merge discussion continue on the talkpage. There was no attempt at discussion on the talkpage. As per these comment I support my closure and comment to consider and discuss merger. I am also happy to have my closure reverted and allow an uninvolved Administrator to re-close. Off2riorob (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse and censure DRV requestor for 1) ignoring consensus, and 2) failing to ask for a closing rationale. Look, Claritas, we get the fact that you don't like fiction. That doesn't give you an excuse to waste everyone else's time on your crusade to delete it. Guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive, and Wikipedia is governed by consensus--which is against your interpretation. Jclemens (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. If guidelines ruled over clear AfD consensus we would have little need for AfD. Consensus here was clear and a merger (which can be of very little content) can be discussed on the article's talk page. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Claritas was the only person arguing to delete; although the nominator (Artw) was not clear on his intentions, his rationale seems to indicate that he wanted to bring the article to AFD for discussion rather than wait for the PROD to expire. At worst, this appears to be a No Consensus. As Off2riorob said in his closure, merge and redirect options can be discussed on the article talk page. BOZ (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'm of the view that a non-admin closure can simply be reverted. Non-admin closure is reserved for uncontroversial closes; the act of disputing the close shows that the non-admin closure was not uncontroversial; therefore the non-admin closure may be voided using the standard WP:BRD procedure, QED. So I've never protested when one of my non-admin closures was reverted (which has happened twice iirc). However, in this case reverting the close for an admin to re-close it seems completely pointless to me, since few admins would delete on the basis of that discussion and any that did would be snow overturned at DRV in any case. I think there's room for us to consider whether non-admin closures are within DRV's remit at all, because by definition there's no use of admin tools to review.—S Marshall T/C 23:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Interesting thoughts. Non-admin closes are pretty rare so I don't know how much of that has already been discussed. Do you think only someone who hadn't participated in the discussion should be able to revert such a close? Otherwise, the effect would be that only admins could close any non-unanimous XFD... Which may be what we want, I don't know. postdlf (talk) 23:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] As this is heading for a snow endorse we may as well jack off about NACs. Every editor will have different views on the circumstances in which an NAC is justifed - NAC is just an essay after all. I wouldn't go so far as to say that anyone can revert an NAC; it is useful to have finality in deletion discussions. At DRV, I think we should review NACs: DRV is about deletion actions not the use of administrative tools. But I prefer to review NACs here as if they were ordinary closes. It's pointless to say "this isn't a justifiable NAC, it needs an admin to close it" when the outcome would otherwise be quite clear. So in assesing this DRV I've just pretended that Off2riorob was an admin (in any case, I think this NAC was justified). The best way to deal with non-admins taking NAC too far is by leaving polite disgruntled messages on their talkpages. Of course, most who regularly perform NACs are probably RFA hopefuls so cocking them up isn't exactly going to look good on their record.--Mkativerata (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Well, I would say that non-admin closures were a distinct minority until Ron Ritzman came on the scene, at which time they became rather common. :) I also non-admin close AFDs, and neither RR nor I show any signs of being administrator hopefuls. I would say that it's not optimal for a debate participant to revert a non-admin closure but there are certainly circumstances in which they ought to be able to! Can we agree that it's suboptimal but permissible for a debate participant to revert the close?—S Marshall T/C 23:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] I think the obvious solution is for you and Ron to be admins. That would solve most of the problems. :-) Hobit (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse The confusion in this appeal is illustrated by 1 the misunderstanding that GNG, PLOT, or BDK or policies: the first is a default rule in one section of a guideline that explicitly permits exceptions, even more than any guideline does; there is no consensus that PLOT applies to anything more than the overall coverage of fiction, not to fictional elements; as for BDK, it it's an inactive wikiproject page--not only can no wikiproject can make policy on its own, but the page says specifically at the top "This page and its subpages contain their suggestions"--not even a proposed guideline, , not even a reasonably established essay, but the suggestions of one or two individuals . As for the specific article in question, even the person bringing the appeal thinks there may be a good case for keeping the article. However, I disagree with S Marshall: DRV is the venue for appeals of all deletion-related questions, no matter who does them or in what manner. It's not an admin-only board. We have frequently reviewed whether a non-adminclose is proper, and I can't see where better to do it. And, the appeal does call attention to an earlier aberrant AfD that might well be revisited, for it shows that our method of determining results ion this type of articles is essentially random. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] This review is in my mind missing the main ingredient, the person that objects, non admin closure should not be an excuse to open a DR and wander off. With the objection raised and the comments from BOZ I would at the most reconsider closing as no consensus' to delete, main issue lack of independent citations. Comments from the AFD discussion regarding merger or redirect can be continued on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse per everybody except the nom. Citing an AFD closed against the apparent consensus in a field where application of the underlying policy has long been the subject of dispute is really, really unconvincing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment - please can all who have endorsed the closure read the policy WP:BKD, and explain why per WP:CONLIMITED the closure is not in violation of a global consensus. Claritas § 12:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'm afraid that it's unacceptable to misrepresent WP:BKD as a policy. It's a guideline that explicitly permits exceptions. WP:CONLIMITED calls itself policy but it directly contradicts the fifth pillar, so we have yet another case where Wikipedia's rules are confused, confusing and contradictory. In such cases how to implement the rules is always down to editorial discretion. But simply put, a local consensus certainly has the authority to decide a rule should be temporarily suspended in the case of a particular article—although in practice, it would take such an overwhelmingly convincing consensus to allow (say) a copyvio or an unsourced negative statement about a living person that I do not foresee either of those things ever happening. However, in this case the closer correctly decided that to allow a fictional topic to stand is hardly in the same league and that the consensus should therefore prevail.—S Marshall T/C 15:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] BKD also contradicts WP:SS, for that matter. Furthermore, assertions regarding WP:CONLIMITED can actually be applied in reverse: the notion that certain subsidiary fictional elements of notable fictional topics can ever be deleted outright (as opposed to merged or redirected to the notable fictional topic) is itself an aberrant local consensus. Jclemens (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] As I read it, the guideline section WP:BKD is concerned with elements of fiction that derive from only one work of fiction. That's what all the examples deal with, at least, and it makes sense, because ordinarily the elements of one work of fiction can be summarized within an article on that single work. I don't see it giving much relevant guidance to elements of fiction that derive from multiple works of fiction, in serial and/or franchise fiction, which poses different issues. In any event, even if it was relevant, nothing in it could mandate a deletion, certainly not against the consensus in an AFD. postdlf (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Massachusetts Academy (comics) – Decision endorsed – T. Canens (talk) 00:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is the sort of close which should not be carried out by a non-admin. While at face value, it appears that there is a consensus to keep, this consensus can in this sort of case be over-rided by the global consensus against these sorts of articles - see, for instance, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baxter Building which was on a very similar fictional element. The policies concerned are WP:GNG, WP:PLOT and WP:BKD, and I feel very strongly that while there may be a case for keeping this article, the fact that there are no policy based arguments to keep means that this closure was inappropriate. While a merge is a possibility, I think there is a case for simply deleting this article, seeing as there's plenty of coverage of it at Hellfire_Club_(comics)#Massachusetts_Academy. I therefore think that this closure may need to be reconsidered. Claritas § 20:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide a link to your discussion with the closer before you started this DRV? I can only find your notice of this DRV on his talk page. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a discussion was not started, I got the FYI to come here only. You are welcome to request reconsideration, but there was support for the long established content, which is mostly a list format, the content factuality is not as I saw disputed, the issue is that it is primarily sourced, in my summary I mentioned the merger and suggested further discussion on the talkpage. There was only one delete vote comment, from the person that is asking for the review. There were four clear supports vote comment, including two experienced Administrators, the nominator was neutral after he disputed the prod nomination by Claritas. I understood the citation issue and considering the comments suggested the merge discussion continue on the talkpage. There was no attempt at discussion on the talkpage. As per these comment I support my closure and comment to consider and discuss merger. I am also happy to have my closure reverted and allow an uninvolved Administrator to re-close. Off2riorob (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse and censure DRV requestor for 1) ignoring consensus, and 2) failing to ask for a closing rationale. Look, Claritas, we get the fact that you don't like fiction. That doesn't give you an excuse to waste everyone else's time on your crusade to delete it. Guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive, and Wikipedia is governed by consensus--which is against your interpretation. Jclemens (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. If guidelines ruled over clear AfD consensus we would have little need for AfD. Consensus here was clear and a merger (which can be of very little content) can be discussed on the article's talk page. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Claritas was the only person arguing to delete; although the nominator (Artw) was not clear on his intentions, his rationale seems to indicate that he wanted to bring the article to AFD for discussion rather than wait for the PROD to expire. At worst, this appears to be a No Consensus. As Off2riorob said in his closure, merge and redirect options can be discussed on the article talk page. BOZ (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm of the view that a non-admin closure can simply be reverted. Non-admin closure is reserved for uncontroversial closes; the act of disputing the close shows that the non-admin closure was not uncontroversial; therefore the non-admin closure may be voided using the standard WP:BRD procedure, QED. So I've never protested when one of my non-admin closures was reverted (which has happened twice iirc). However, in this case reverting the close for an admin to re-close it seems completely pointless to me, since few admins would delete on the basis of that discussion and any that did would be snow overturned at DRV in any case.
I think there's room for us to consider whether non-admin closures are within DRV's remit at all, because by definition there's no use of admin tools to review.—S Marshall T/C 23:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting thoughts. Non-admin closes are pretty rare so I don't know how much of that has already been discussed. Do you think only someone who hadn't participated in the discussion should be able to revert such a close? Otherwise, the effect would be that only admins could close any non-unanimous XFD... Which may be what we want, I don't know. postdlf (talk) 23:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - As this is heading for a snow endorse we may as well jack off about NACs. Every editor will have different views on the circumstances in which an NAC is justifed - NAC is just an essay after all. I wouldn't go so far as to say that anyone can revert an NAC; it is useful to have finality in deletion discussions. At DRV, I think we should review NACs: DRV is about deletion actions not the use of administrative tools. But I prefer to review NACs here as if they were ordinary closes. It's pointless to say "this isn't a justifiable NAC, it needs an admin to close it" when the outcome would otherwise be quite clear. So in assesing this DRV I've just pretended that Off2riorob was an admin (in any case, I think this NAC was justified). The best way to deal with non-admins taking NAC too far is by leaving polite disgruntled messages on their talkpages. Of course, most who regularly perform NACs are probably RFA hopefuls so cocking them up isn't exactly going to look good on their record.--Mkativerata (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I would say that non-admin closures were a distinct minority until Ron Ritzman came on the scene, at which time they became rather common. :) I also non-admin close AFDs, and neither RR nor I show any signs of being administrator hopefuls.
      I would say that it's not optimal for a debate participant to revert a non-admin closure but there are certainly circumstances in which they ought to be able to! Can we agree that it's suboptimal but permissible for a debate participant to revert the close?—S Marshall T/C 23:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think the obvious solution is for you and Ron to be admins. That would solve most of the problems. :-) Hobit (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The confusion in this appeal is illustrated by 1 the misunderstanding that GNG, PLOT, or BDK or policies: the first is a default rule in one section of a guideline that explicitly permits exceptions, even more than any guideline does; there is no consensus that PLOT applies to anything more than the overall coverage of fiction, not to fictional elements; as for BDK, it it's an inactive wikiproject page--not only can no wikiproject can make policy on its own, but the page says specifically at the top "This page and its subpages contain their suggestions"--not even a proposed guideline, , not even a reasonably established essay, but the suggestions of one or two individuals . As for the specific article in question, even the person bringing the appeal thinks there may be a good case for keeping the article. However, I disagree with S Marshall: DRV is the venue for appeals of all deletion-related questions, no matter who does them or in what manner. It's not an admin-only board. We have frequently reviewed whether a non-adminclose is proper, and I can't see where better to do it. And, the appeal does call attention to an earlier aberrant AfD that might well be revisited, for it shows that our method of determining results ion this type of articles is essentially random. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This review is in my mind missing the main ingredient, the person that objects, non admin closure should not be an excuse to open a DR and wander off. With the objection raised and the comments from BOZ I would at the most reconsider closing as no consensus' to delete, main issue lack of independent citations. Comments from the AFD discussion regarding merger or redirect can be continued on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per everybody except the nom. Citing an AFD closed against the apparent consensus in a field where application of the underlying policy has long been the subject of dispute is really, really unconvincing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please can all who have endorsed the closure read the policy WP:BKD, and explain why per WP:CONLIMITED the closure is not in violation of a global consensus. Claritas § 12:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that it's unacceptable to misrepresent WP:BKD as a policy. It's a guideline that explicitly permits exceptions.
WP:CONLIMITED calls itself policy but it directly contradicts the fifth pillar, so we have yet another case where Wikipedia's rules are confused, confusing and contradictory. In such cases how to implement the rules is always down to editorial discretion. But simply put, a local consensus certainly has the authority to decide a rule should be temporarily suspended in the case of a particular article—although in practice, it would take such an overwhelmingly convincing consensus to allow (say) a copyvio or an unsourced negative statement about a living person that I do not foresee either of those things ever happening. However, in this case the closer correctly decided that to allow a fictional topic to stand is hardly in the same league and that the consensus should therefore prevail.—S Marshall T/C 15:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BKD also contradicts WP:SS, for that matter. Furthermore, assertions regarding WP:CONLIMITED can actually be applied in reverse: the notion that certain subsidiary fictional elements of notable fictional topics can ever be deleted outright (as opposed to merged or redirected to the notable fictional topic) is itself an aberrant local consensus. Jclemens (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I read it, the guideline section WP:BKD is concerned with elements of fiction that derive from only one work of fiction. That's what all the examples deal with, at least, and it makes sense, because ordinarily the elements of one work of fiction can be summarized within an article on that single work. I don't see it giving much relevant guidance to elements of fiction that derive from multiple works of fiction, in serial and/or franchise fiction, which poses different issues. In any event, even if it was relevant, nothing in it could mandate a deletion, certainly not against the consensus in an AFD. postdlf (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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