Jenna Rose (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This close by SilkTork gives too much weight to the keeps and is very biased. Mabixiyi (talk • contribs) 23:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC) shes an autotune singer and isnt notable. SlickTork is a good writer but to biased in close Mabixiyi (talk • contribs) 23:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• — Mabixiyi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• I'd prefer this as an NC close, but frankly the majority of the deletion arguments were WP:JNN or "sources suck" comments with no real explanation as to what was wrong with them. I certainly can see discounting those by enough to reach a keep outcome. weak endorse Hobit (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close. While acknowledging a concern when an hours-old account, has as his very first edit ever the initiation of a DRV, a newb has the same right to seek overturning an AFD close as anyone else. And while I am amazed that a brand new editor knew immediately what to do and where to do it as his very first-ever edit, I am not suggesting sock. While his user page shows a personal dislike for the article topic which is mirrored in his statement above, a personal disagreement does not equate to a case against the closer or his closing rationale. There was no flaw in the closer's careful rationale and AFD is not a count of heads. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural endorse - The closing rationale is a pile of horse puckey, to be honest. Blogs don't establish notability, and the scant sources that remain focus more on the fad of "yet another Rebecca Black" than on this Rose person herself. But a bad-faith DRV filing should not be endorsed or encouraged, for this or any other XfD. Legitimate users do not make their very first wiki-foray into DRV; this is either a block-evading or an identity-hiding user, and they should not be rewarded for these antics. Tarc (talk) 01:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse about as weakly as Hobit. While I supported deletion, the numbers of voters on each side were roughly equal and the closing Admin offered a thoughtful analysis of the strength of argument on each side. He didn't introduce anything of his own opinion that hadn't come up in the discussion, and his evaluation of the arguments did not blatantly contradict any established guidelines. So I'd say the closing is within the acceptable amount of Admin discretion for a closing. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Endorse - What Tarc says is correct re this DRV being illegitimate, don't waste our time. On the merits, the close was within the admin's discretion. The AfD was open for days just awaiting an admin willing to make the decision.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse, though I would have preferred a "no consensus" close, as I probably would have closed it. Otherwise, there was no consensus for deletion at least here. –MuZemike 06:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy procedural endorse per Mark Arsten and Tarc. I supported "keep" & worked on the article during the AfD. Re this DRV nom, I am boldly suggesting WP:DUCK. (Tarc, in my opinion, no blatantly unreliable blogs were cited, only those under the auspices of an organization, or a well-known notable person deemed to be reliable about his opinion, were cited. The article is light on primary sources.) Two questions: do DRVs normally happen often when keeps occur? And if this DRV closes unendorsed, can we expect another DRV, or is there a natural stop to the deletion choochoo train? Links are welcome in lieu of discussion, or reply on my talk page to avoid a digression. --Lexein (talk) 06:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes, DRV can be an appropriate way to challenge a keep close. There is always the easier option of simply challenging a keep by another AfD, but since it is strongly discouraged to do it immediately after, if someone is in good faith convinced a serious mistake has been made it's not inappropriate. One of the purposes of Del Rev is to improve the quality of admin decisions by discussing possible errors. DGG ( talk ) 19:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse outcome. Might have been better closed as no consensus, but clkearly no consensus for deletion. Whack Mabixiyi for the "SlickTork" comment and propel them back into the sock drawer. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I would have gone "no consensus" as well, and on my reading of the closing statement, the closing admin arguably crossed that admittedly very blurry boundary between assessing the objective merits of the arguments (ok) and preferring the arguments of one side to those of the other, by doing things like forming their own view of the sufficiency of the sources (not ok). But "keep" vs. "no consensus" is usually an inconseqential distinction not meriting DRV intervention. Oh, and sometimes the bad faith/sock/nutbars get their noms up. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Well not completely, because when we get to inevitable 4th AfD on this fairly terrible article, you'll get the usual suspects yelling "But it was a Keep last time, and notability isn't temporary!". (Yeah, I know WP:CCC, but you get the drift). Black Kite (t) (c) 00:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Meh. A terribly explained close with hints of supervote that should clearly have been No Consensus, but sometimes you have to fight the battles you can actually win round here. Edit: mind you, I've just noticed the below DRV, where the same admin closes a clear NC as Keep based on his own opinion... Black Kite (t) (c) 23:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, educate me, by linking to an example of a high-quality AfD 'keep' close of a long, contentious discussion which could arguably have been NC. (Is there a Hall of Fame for excellent AfD closes for hard cases?) For some reason I don't see the hints of supervote you saw. To avoid cluttering this, feel free to reply on my Talk. --Lexein (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Although Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Gerry Ryan was not a "long, contentious discussion", I consider it to be one of the best "keep" closures that seemed to be a supervote based on a vote count. The AfD could also have been closed as "no consensus" as was noted at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 20#Death of Gerry Ryan by the deletion review closer. Cunard (talk) 23:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, so you're saying it AfD/D of GR was a high-quality close, but it still smelled a bit of supervote? Will every assessment of discussion points and closing based on them therefore smell like a supervote? (by supervote I presume you mean either overriding against consensus, or putting a thumb on the scale to push !votes one way). --Lexein (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• See Wikipedia:Supervote for the common definition of the term at deletion review.

  I wrote that NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs)'s closure seemed to be a supervote based on the vote count. But when the arguments of the "keep" and "delete" sides were considered, the community endorsed the closure at the deletion review, affirming that it was not a supervote.

  It is difficult to determine whether the close of a numerically close debate is a supervote when the closing admin chooses either "keep" or "delete". The closing admin's rationale must be analyzed. Some questions to consider:

  Is the rationale an unbiased assessment of the opposing sides in a debate?
  Has the rationale relied solely on the arguments advanced in the discussion, or has the closing admin introduced new arguments?
  Has the closing admin relied on his/her own interpretations of the relevant policies and guidelines or the community's?

  I have read SilkTork's closure but do not intend to read the AfD, which has too much acrimony for my taste. Cunard (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks very much. All duly noted, and I won't make you go read the AfD. . --Lexein (talk) 00:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• A pox on both your houses- Obvious sockpuppet objects obnoxiously to a bad close on a terrible article by an admin who doesn't understand that keep !votes go underneath all the other votes and not in the closing statement. Reyk _YO! 00:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  The SPA's timing,[1] ability to navigate Wikipedia, and laughable imitation of poor spelling and grammer, leads me to believe that there was an entirey different motive to his DRV than what is found in his initial statement and its accompanying insult. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  It was almost 24 hours between close and account creation, then 7 minutes until DRV creation. What I wanna know is, what was he doing for those 7 minutes? We can only guess at that, and at what sort of sock was involved. I'm guessing, a gray gym sock. --Lexein (talk) 11:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus. While I know the practical result is the same in the sense of not deleting the article, the implications are quite different, and there was clearly no consensus here to keep. The closing admin says that keep arguments were stronger but gives no indication why that is the case, or why the delete arguments were of less value.Griswaldo (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  While he does not offer a point-by-point rehash or analysis of the discussion, he wrote "a number of the keeps are better argued", a comment that essentially invites us to those arguments. He also wrote "some delete votes don’t fully support their 'not notable' assertions, or are hesitant – suggesting that the article can be reinstated later", by which I infer 1) he had analyzed the discussion and 2) he is inviting editors to themselves re-read what was said by others. Though a no-consensus is a consideration, his close statement seems a calm and reasoned rationale which addresses the discussion as a whole and acknowledges the strengths or weaknesses of the arguments of all who commented. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Calm" has nothing to do with it. He mentions the discussion but does not actually "address" its key points. That's the problem. It doesn't matter if he offers vague opinions like "those are better argued." Why are they better argued? That's the question, and I see no answer to it. When you make a close that goes against the vote count, you have to be specific in your rationale. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Calm and reasoned does have merit, specially as discussion on Silk Tork's talk page[2] indicated he is always willing to go and expand on a summary and/or change to no-consensus. What also has merit is that this DRV was sneak-attack filed by a SPA/SOCK without his having notified Silk Torc or even discussed it with him... and quite suspiciously only minutes after the DRV below was initiated. Tarc stated it best above: "a bad-faith DRV filing should not be endorsed or encouraged" and I agree with him. We do not reward socks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Socking has nothing to do with the merits of his close, and to argue that we ought to disregard basic procedure to punish a sock is completely unacceptable. If this DRV was closed as soon as it was opened on procedural grounds because it was started by a sock I would not have complained. But if the question is going to be discussed then we we ignore who started it and evaluate the question on its merits. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have already commented above and pointed out that ST had already showed willingness to change his close to no-consensus and expand further on his closing summary. The actions of a sock in ignoring WP:DELREVD and bringing this out of process DRV acted to prevent the nominator responding and addressing before the DRV was initiated. Any DRV, specially one insigated by a sock, where the initiiator purposely does not attempt a discussion with the closer beforehand runs contrary to WP:DRV#Instructions and should always be seen is bad form. Toward Silk Tork, I do not see him as being anything but agreeable and willing to discuss. As the DRv was a sneak attack and out of process, why not simply close this one and alow ST to act as he has indicated he would on his talk page. This DRV promotes totally unneccessary drama and angst. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus. The closing statement is essentially an explanation of why the closing administrator personally feels the subject is notable. I am slightly disturbed by the statement that the article is soberly and carefully written, firmly sourced, and avoids any dubious scandal, because it is possible for something to be a BLP violation even if it is all of these things. It's true that some of the Delete opinions didn't support an assertion that the subject wasn't notable, but many of the Keep opinions were little better ("Keep and LOL Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenna Rose (2nd nomination), is the nominator has problem with this person or what?", for instance). There were two opposing arguments at the AfD: that the article should be kept because the available sources showed the subject met the general notability guideline, and that the article should be deleted because the sources are mainly from local news and focus on a single song combined with the potential BLP issues of having an article on a 12 year old. Both opinions are reasonable interpretations of the subject and I don't see a consensus to put one viewpoint above the other. Hut 8.5 15:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• SilkTork has already said on his talk page that he'd be "quite prepared to change the outcome to "no consensus" if that is seen to be appropriate". Since nobody is arguing that this should have been closed as delete (not even the SPA nominator), can't we just let him do that and close this now? Alzarian16 (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • While not adverse to this, or even to the article being incubated for a while, the previous no-consensus was seen by its recent nominator as tacit permission to renominate just 20-days-later when, with a no consesnsus, it would haved seemed more prudent to me to follow guideline instruction for such and have allowed it a reasonable amount of time for possible improvements to be made, rather than arbitrarily decide that 20 days was enough time. That was the initial point made in my own original keep in this last AFD. If changed to no consesnsus as a result of this DRV, let's actually give this one a reasonable amount of time before its predicted AFD #4. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't oppose SilkTork's suggestion to change the close to no consensus, that is what I thought would happen to the discussion (and how I would have closed it myself). Frankly, if this gets overturned to no consensus, it will be a great precedent for overturning 'delete' outcomes in similar debates.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Would that that were true. I've never seen precedent matter before; if it did, that really would be a precedent. AFAIK precedent has always been dismissed as WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. But seriously, with no firm rules, there can't really be rulings, and hence no precedent. --Lexein (talk) 02:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really talking about the concept of precedent on substantive subject matters (e.g., should every high school have an article), but procedurally about how AfDs are handled on closing. And although wikipedia "precedent" has no binding force, it can have persuasive force. Its no secret that its difficult to get a consensus in contentious AfDs, but there is some temptation to brush that under the rug to get the "right" result in an AfD. The "right" result, however, is no consensus. The system is intended to be biased in favor of keeping content, over and above single subjective judgments of unworthiness. If SilkTork had closed this as delete, would we have as many editors suggesting the proper result was no consensus? I think not.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I see your point. But if we know (and closers know) that "no consensus" always results in repeated result-shopping AfDs (which are train wrecks, and go against WP:NOTAGAIN by not bringing up unaddressed reasons and not allowing time for improvements), what then is the "right" result at AfD? IMHO, unless strict no-renom quiet periods (NRQP) for article development are really enforced, closers must take that into consideration. If that NRQP really existed as policy, I'd agree with "overturn to no consensus" right now.

Tangentially, I see that of the two examples of DRVs endorsing deletion you mention, the second was recreated anyways. So AfD, DRV - 50% effort seemingly just wasted (more, for multiple AfDs!). The only upside is that hopefully article improvement occurred.--Lexein (talk) 08:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I see that quite a number of the usual suspects have shown up and voted "delete, JNN" and I'm pleased to see a closer who's had the bottle given their nonsense absolutely no weight whatsoever. (I said "vote" not "!vote" there, and that was deliberate.) I'm not thrilled to see a long DRV discussion arise from a sockpuppet's nomination. But equally, many of the keep !votes were also weak, and it seems quite obvious to me that there was no consensus in that debate.—S Marshall T/C 09:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close The closing administrator did properly explain their rational. There was significant coverage found in this AFD, which happened just a month after the previous one closed. The majority of those wanting delete did not comment on the sources, simply stated they didn't like it or didn't think she was notable. Dream Focus 22:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

First of all, there were 18 deletes to 15 keeps and most of the keeps were not policy-based, but instead explicitly said they liked it because it promoted their POV. There are several policy-backed arguments for deletion, which the closing admin does not appear to have read or understood given the discussion on his talk page - he seems to be ignorant of WP:POVFORK, for instance, claiming that content is never a reason to delete. Further, the closing admin, instead of judging the consensus, made new (non-policy-backed) arguments not found in the discussion as the reason for this decision, meaning this doesn't seem to have been an actual review of the consensus, but a new keep vote masquerading as a closure.

So, I don't think the closure can be trusted, so let's review the arguments actually made.

This is a WP:POVFORK of the main articles, which we have three other ones of. Compare this article to Global warming controversy#The mainstream scientific position, and challenges to it, where all the arguments in the quotations in this so-called "list" are discussed, the major climate contrariansd are namedd and discussed, and all that you could say, in an NPOV wand sourced way about this subject is put in context in the debate, instead of only presenting one side. Putting a half-arsed explanation of the mainstrream position in (without giving the evidence FOR that position) does not balance the article, or make it anything but a WP:POVPUSHing WP:COATRACK.

There were sources given on the "keep" side, but none of them was a list of this sort, and all they showed was that global warming denial arguments were notable. However, that's why these arguments are covered in great detail in global warming controversy, including naming the notable scientists. NONE of the sources provided was a list of this sort, NONE of the sources provided went into this much detail about the number of specific contrarians, and all the arguments the sources covered are covered in global warming controversy. Insofar this isn't WP:Original research, making a type of list that has not been assembled anywhere else but Wikipedia, this is a WP:POVFORK. Further, such lists are a long-standing tactic in fringe circles, see A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism (and I believe similar ones have been made for things like smoking supposedly not causing cancer), so we're actually fostering a WP:POVFORK that takes the form of a known type of propoganda, but one which doesn't even have a notable example in this field off-Wikipedia.

After six years, it's time we said enough already 86.** IP (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Declare AfD closure as improper, and therefore null and void (See below - ATG): Further to the above, consider Wikipedia:Afd#How_an_AfD_discussion_is_closed: "After seven days have passed, the discussion is moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, and an uninvolved (i.e. one who has not participated in the deletion discussion) admin or editor in good standing (observing the recommendations for non-admin closure) will assess the discussion and make a decision to Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirect, or Transwiki the article based on a judgment of the consensus of the discussion. If there has been no obvious consensus to change the status of the article, the person closing the AfD will state No consensus, and the article will be kept". I consider the statement in the closing summary that the closing admin used the featured status of the Global warming article as grounds for a 'keep' decision as tantamount to an admission that he/she based the closure not on a "judgement of the consensus of the discussion", but instead on his/her own judgement of the appropriateness of the article - this would clearly contravene the accepted closure policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The main point of the close was that, while the article had issues, they could and should be dealt with by ordinary editing such as RfC, which is now happening. So, the points made against the article were respected and a constructive way forward has been recommended. Whether this is called a Keep or No consensus is just nitpicking - the practical effect is much the same. Also, the DRV nomination above talks of "explicitly said they liked it because it promoted their POV". I'm not seeing where that's coming from. Some editors such as NewsAndEventsGuy and Q Science indicated that they personally disagreed with the scientists but felt that their views should still be recorded. Warden (talk) 22:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There is some related discussion on my talkpage: User_talk:SilkTork#List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn- I'm not usually a fan of playing the "supervote" card, but this here is a textbook example. The closing administrator made the existence of a related featured article, and his own opinion on MOS:LIST, rationales for keeping when neither of those things had been mentioned in the debate. Those are things you mention in a keep !vote, not in a closing statement. I also feel that SilkTork's reading of the debate was highly one-sided; it does not appear that he has read or properly understood the delete side of the debate. According to SilkTork, one editor who provided some sources was enough to answer the concerns of the other side. But if you actually go and read the debate you'll see that that argument is strongly debated and refuted, on the grounds that it misses the point. I did not participate in the debate and I don't know how I would have voted in it, but it is unacceptable to ignore one side with such disdain. Reyk _YO! 22:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn closer seems to have substituted their own opinion for an accurate reading of the discussion. The main thrust of their closing statement is that The main concerns about this article are that it is original research and is not neutral. These are editing issues. However the people arguing that the article should be deleted repeatedly stated that the existence of any article on this topic would be non-neutral and that the OR issues were sufficiently serious that deletion was warranted. The closer should not have substituted their opinion for that of the people commenting in the discussion. The fact that the material under question mostly concerns living people should also have been taken into consideration, but there's no sign that it was. On SilkTork's talk page s/he states that The more I looked into the discussion the more I felt that this was a content issue that should be resolved via other channels. The function of an AfD closer is not to have a "feeling" about something but to judge consensus, the two do not overlap.

  The closing statement also mentions several other factors which were either not brought up in the discussion or which were frankly irrelevant. SilkTork notes that the list appears to meet MOS:LIST, and provides both information and navigation. This issue was not mentioned in the discussion and the fact that a list passes MOS:LIST does not make it encyclopedic. The closing statement also said that The parent article, Global warming, has also been a major cause of concern, but through careful editing (and ArbCom sanctions) is now a Featured Article. (which again was not mentioned in the discussion and is totally irrelevant), that the article is prose linked in related articles on Wikipedia (not just templated) (why is the fact that this article is mentioned in another article relevant?), that Lists by their nature sometimes fly close to OR as there are sometimes no sources available which group items together the way that Wikipedia lists do (which, again was not mentioned in the discussion, and was the personal opinion of the closer).

  86 is not correct to say that debates should not be closed against majority viewpoint, however it is true that several arguments in favour of keeping the article merely stated that the nomination was an attempt to censor critics of global warming. These arguments should have been ignored entirely, however the closing statement implicitly agreed with them: This article has caused concern for some years, though that appears to be due to the controversial nature of the subject matter rather than that it specifically meets deletion criteria. This debate should have been closed as No Consensus or Delete, and a Keep closure cannot be justified on these grounds. Hut 8.5 23:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Arguments about censorship have validity because it is our policy that Wikipedia should not be censored. Such arguments are therefore policy-based and so cannot be dismissed on procedural grounds. Warden (talk) 23:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Neither the AfD nominator nor any of the participants in the discussion wanted to remove the article in order to suppress the anti-AGW viewpoint. If someone disputes a point nobody has made and assumes bad faith in doing it, then that opinion ought to hold little to no weight. Reyk _YO! 23:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) No. Nobody tried to argue that the article should be deleted because its contents could be considered offensive, the arguments for deletion were based on WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:FRINGE and WP:BLP. A mere assertion that the nominator is trying to censor Wikipedia is not addressing any of those arguments and is little more than a personal attack. Hut 8.5 23:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The nomination specifically argued that the list should be deleted because it was referred to by other sceptics. In the discussion, the nominator stated, "I think I have made it entirely clear why I think it should be deleted; it's horrible." It seems that the list offended him and he wished to suppress it for ideological and political reasons. That's censorship. Warden (talk) 08:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That wasn't what the nominator was saying. Their argument was that the existence of such a list is inherently non-neutral. The fact that climate sceptics cite it was offered in support of that (with the obvious reasoning being that they cite it because they think it supports their position). "It's horrible" just means "the article is a horrible violation of our policies and guidelines", not "I am personally offended by the existence of this article". Removing NPOV violations is not censorship (or, at least, it's not what WP:CENSOR is talking about), even though it involves removing material because of the position it advocates. Hut 8.5 11:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Censors usually claim that they are acting in the public interest — protecting weaker minds from corruption and heresy, &c. It's clear from cases such as WP:SPOILER and Rorschach test that we are not in the business of suppressing information which some editors would prefer to remain hidden. Our guideline is notability - if other publications write about it then we can too. Warden (talk) 11:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If removing NPOV violations is "censorship", then censorship is essential to enforce one of our core content policies. You're also confusing necessary and sufficient conditions: it is necessary for the subjects of articles to be notable, but that doesn't mean articles can't be deleted on other grounds or that a topic which is notable must be included. Pages can be (and frequently are) deleted on other grounds such as WP:NOT, WP:OR, WP:BLP etc. Hut 8.5 13:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close. No flaw in the closer's careful rationale and AFD is not a count of heads. From the article's history, yes, it is a controversial topic, but agreeing or disagreeing with the topic does not equate to non-notability, and disagreeing with the truth or not of a demonstrably notable topic does equate to "delete at all costs". Wikipedia strives for balance, and as long as opposing topics are covered in enough detail in reliable sources, we worry less about the "truth" of either side, and more about each side having verifiability. The nominator made a careful and well-reasoned close that granted the controversial nature of the article's topic and suggested it be better dealt with through regular editing and encouraged those with concerns toward validity of the topic or its coverage to hold an RFC. The closer's actions seems quite reasonable, and not POV-pushing of some personal agenda. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to NC not that that actually changes anything significant. If anything can be said with certainly about that discussion, it is that there was no consensus. Is it a valid topic for a list? Perhaps. Is it really poorly written and a POV problem? Almost certainly. Is it so bad we should just start over? There is no consensus. I do think the keep close has elements of a supervote, but I also don't see how a deletion result can be reached. I think an RfC on the format is called for, per the closer. Hobit (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Troika proposal. Because this is such a controversial list, perhaps the technique used in other cases, where three administrators make a call should be used here as well. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak overturn and delete – At the very least, "keep" was not a proper decision by the closing admin. A good amount of the arguments for retention were significantly weak or did not address the concerns of the deletion side. I would be fine with a "no consensus" close as a 2nd choice, if only to leave the door open for further discussion down the road, but a "keep" close and the accompanying rationale serves to shut that door. –MuZemike 00:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an excellent point. The article clearly has a lot of serious issues that need to be addressed but that will be more difficult now. A keep result is effectively a seal of approval on the article in its current state, and editors anxious that the article should remain an anti-AGW soapbox will just point to the AfD result if anyone tries to fix it and claim that any concerns are not relevant. Unfortunately, that claim has much more strength when the closing statement says pretty much the same thing. Reyk _YO! 03:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think by Wikipedia offering a sourced balance by showing both the con and pro sides of the GW issue acts to serve our readers understanding of a topic. Additionally, I do not believe any of the four "keeps" for this article since 2007 acted as a seal of approval, as it continued to be edited after each and every one. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, no. We don't provide balanced coverage of a topic by setting up two equal and opposite soapboxes. And one of the things brought up in the AfD was the determined resistance by the POV-pushers to any and all attempts by anyone else to fix the problems. Reyk _YO! 20:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, basically. (Although I think No Consensus would have been a better close). The numerical quantity of voters was roughly equal, and in that situation admins are permitted to weigh the strength of the arguments involved rather than counting votes. In this close, ST gave less weight to votes that advocated deletion due to fixable problems, which I think is a basically acceptable way of judging the discussion. (I didn't vote in the discussion). Mark Arsten (talk) 02:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that's precisely what they didn't do - the closure discusses things never brought up in the discussion, instead of trying to evaluate the consensus of others. 86.** IP (talk) 06:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. The closure does not attempt to determine consensus on the basis of the opinions that have been submitted, but imposes the opinion of the closer as the outcome of the discussion. This is disruptive. The discussion should instead be closed as "delete" on the basis of the strength of the arguments, for the reasons I advanced in the discussion.  Sandstein  06:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. According to the stats, 255 people watch that page, the talk page has been viewed 704 times in the last 30 days, and the main page has been viewed 12,528 times in the last 30 days. The page obviously serves a purpose. If the users want it, why should a few editors be trying so hard to delete it? If you want to build a house, and the zoning forbids it, you go for a variance. Once. This page has been granted a effective variance 4 times. Enough already. Q Science (talk) 07:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not a second round of AfD, apart from the fact that WP:USEFUL is a bad argument. Hut 8.5 08:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Is this a joke? You don't get the result you like, after four nominations, ten days of vigorous debate in the most recent nomination, and you immediately appeal? "No consensus" would probably have been more accurate, but I certainly can't see any reason to overturn the decision. It shouldn't be allowed to try again, and again, and again, forum shopping if necessary, until you get the result you want. The rest of us are now concentrating on improving the article on its Talk page; I suggest that's the most useful use of people's energies at this stage. --Merlinme (talk) 08:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Change to Overturn to No Consensus (see below after discussion with Hut 8.5. --Merlinme (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This isn't forum shopping, DRV is the right venue (and the only right venue) for contesting the closure of AfDs. The most recent AfD was over two years ago (consensus can change) and even that was closed as "no consensus", so you can't argue that there was a standing consensus that the article was acceptable. Hut 8.5 08:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• At best, that's an argument for changing the result to No Consensus. How you can change it to an Overturn and delete, essentially ignoring ten days of finely balanced discussion, is beyond me. --Merlinme (talk) 08:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The previous discussions the article went through aren't an argument for closing this discussion as anything at all. The only thing that is relevant to closing this discussion the comments put forward in it. Hut 8.5 10:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I can see a case for asking three administrators to decide whether the request was correctly closed, and whether the result should stand; I can see a case for changing the result to "No Consensus"; if for some reason procedures were not followed, I can see a case for re-opening the deletion nomination, although that seems rather pointless as it is very hard to see why it would get anything other than the previous result. I cannot see a case for ignoring the deletion debate and saying "we'll ignore everyone else and delete the article because we know better". --Merlinme (talk) 13:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't said that, nor has anyone else. The problem here is the other way round: the closer imposed their own opinion on the discussion when closing as Keep. Hut 8.5 13:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be curious to know if there are any other cases of reviews with an 18-15 split which after review were closed as "Delete". In any other debate I've ever seen on Wikipedia, an 18-15 split is "no consensus". To overturn the close as "Delete" is a travesty of the whole AfD process. --Merlinme (talk) 13:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• AfD discussions are not closed based on counting heads. Hut 8.5 14:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• And that is a sufficient reason to delete the article? --Merlinme (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Not by itself, no, but it does invalidate your reasoning that we have to close as no consensus simply because the count was close. Hut 8.5 14:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• But then that surely brings us back to my previous point, which is that you are essentially saying that you ignore the 15 Wikipedians who voted Keep, because You Know Better. I repeat, I have never seen a Wikipedia debate as close as this decided as anything other than No Consensus. I find it difficult to see how it could be seen as consensus, unless perhaps there were signs of sock puppeting or canvassing. --Merlinme (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• For a start you're misrepresenting my position. I think No Consensus would have been a reasonable reading of the debate, and if it had been closed that way I would not be complaining. Secondly if the debate had been closed as Delete then that would not have meant the people arguing the article should be kept were being "ignored". The deletion guidelines permit (indeed they require) the closing administrator to take account of the strength of arguments. Raw headcount is nothing more than a very vague expression of consensus in cases like this, and deletion discussions can be (and are) closed in favour of a position most participants argued against. Hut 8.5 15:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I apologise if I've misunderstood your position- I'm not quite sure how we got into such a debate when I hope it was fairly clear that I thought No Consensus was probably the correct closure. Suggest we leave it there. --Merlinme (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest you change to "overturn" if you don't agree the closure was proper ("overturn" in this context doesn't necessarily mean "delete it"). I still don't agree with your reasoning for taking that position though. Hut 8.5 15:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to No Consensus I still strongly object to an immediate attempt to overturn the decision of the 5th nomination without notifying the interested parties. (That's fifth, not fourth, by the way, for some reason the third nomination in the article milestones was not marked as such.) I also don't think comments in this review which essentially boil down to "Delete for the reasons I advanced in the discussion" are very helpful, and certainly not without notifying the people who were arguing the other side. However. My more considered view is that the close as "Keep" was inappropriate. In general I think that people should be very wary of discounting clearly taken positions by experienced Wikipedia editors "because they don't fit with policy". I'd argue that there has to be a very clear failure with very clear policies for this to be a reasonable thing to do, because apart from anything else, who is to judge which policy has been violated? I disagree with the whole principle of "super votes"; where on earth is that laid down as policy? Copyright violations, defamation, ok fair enough, but not normal content. If you cannot get community consensus that policies have been clearly violated and the article should be deleted, but you cannot get community consensus that the article is clearly a worthy Wikipedia article, then I don't see how you can argue that the result of the discussion was anything other than "No consensus". For example, in this case one side thinks BLP is violated; the other side disagrees and thinks that as long as quotes are clearly sourced, challengable, etc., then BLP is not violated. One side thinks that the article is Synthesis; the other side disagrees and thinks that as long as the scientist has clearly taken a position disagreeing with the consensus position (as advanced by the IPCC) it is not synthesis. One side thinks that the article breaks the rules on Due Weight; the other side disagrees and points to the lengthy lead presenting the consensus position and the graphic and caption showing the small number of scientists disagreeing with the consensus. One side complains that the article is a Quote Farm; the other disagrees as the quotes are pertinent and serve a useful purpose. So in other words as far as I can see the two sides presented fairly evenly matched arguments for ten days, and there are few or no votes which I think should be completely discounted. With that in mind, an 18-15 split with a result of "No Consensus" seems to me a very accurate reflection of the debate. There may well be areas in which the use of the quotes can be improved, or the means used to identify the scientists changed (for example, using third party reporting in addition to the quotes), and these are being discussed on the Talk page; but these are content disputes, and have no part in a deletion discussion. The vote in favour (18-15) of deleting the article was actually weaker than in the previous deletion nomination (which was 45-31); the earlier "No Consensus" decision was reviewed and found to be a reasonable decision. The !vote this time round has apparently been more closely balanced despite a large number of climate change editors having since been banned or topic banned as a result of various ArbCom decisions. I sincerely wish that people would accept that "No Consensus" to delete is a proper reflection of the current community feelings on the matter, and that those arguing in favour of deletion have not been able to achieve anything like consensus among the community to delete, despite five attempts; in the light of that, we should be returning to what Wikipedia is supposed to be about, i.e. improving the article's content. --Merlinme (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse With all due respect to the folks who are seasoned Wikipedia contributors that have been contributing to this discussion, I'm a user/Wikipedia fan putting in her two cents for keeping the page. I have visited this particular page periodically for research purposes and do not see it as an illegitimate WP:POVFORK. Instead, I would say that it is an example of a legitimate WP:SPINOFF. I agree that Wikipedia has good pages discussing the controversy surrounding global warming; however, it should be noted that users who visit this particular list are not looking to sift through the content of scientific arguments. Users like me are specifically looking for the names of sources of these arguments. For this purpose, this list is an excellent summary and is presented in a NPOV. VS 78 (talk) 12:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It seems to me that this discussion has been sidetracked into becoming another discussion on the merits of the article. This however is irrelevant. The AfD was improperly closed by an admin who chose to base his decision on his own opinion of the article, and on factors that nobody else has had a chance to respond to: effectively appointing himself 'Judge, Jury, and Executioner'. This is a gross distortion of the AfD process, and frankly, I have to question whether the person involved is fit to remain an admin. I have asked him to clarify whether he considers references to other articles, and to evidence not previously discussed, as normal behaviour in the process of AfD, but so far I have had no response. If this actually is normal (I sincerely hope not), then we clearly need to make this explicit in policy, rather than giving a misleading impression of the process. It seems to me to be dishonest to tell participants in a debate that their opinions will be considered, and then have decisions made by fiat. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think rather we are getting sidetracked from saying "the Keep closure was incorrect" to saying "the Keep closure was incorrect therefore the article should be deleted", which is a non-sequitur if ever I saw one. I've seen sensible arguments why the closure as Keep was incorrect; I've yet to see sensible arguments why such an evenly split AfD process should now be closed as "Delete" rather than "No consensus". --Merlinme (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point - the correct procedure at this point would be to declare the AfD closure as null and void - though how we proceed from then on is unclear. I have therefore revised my previous 'Overturn', above. For the record, I do not accept that there is 'no consensus' for deletion (if the AfD is properly closed) - but this is irrelevant at this juncture. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Declaring interest as I argued to keep. The point made by the admin who closed the debate was that the reasons originally given by the nominator were not valid deletion criteria WP:DEL#REASON but editing issues. I was expecting "no consensus", but I can see the admin's point. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, leaning to overturn. SilkTork said in hir closing rationale that AfD was not cleanup, but many of the delete voters were clear, and some explicitly stated, that they did not believe the OR, NPOV and BLP problems were fixable through cleanup. Closing admin's own belief that they are fixable can't override, so hir dismissal of these users was improper. Many of the "keep" votes were irrelevant or flawed (eg. "it keeps denialists out of other articles," "global warming controversy is notable," "I agree with these scientists," "censorship!", justavote), but the problems with these don't seem to have been taken into account, while imagined problems with "delete" votes were cited. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus, since even Ray Charles could see that there was no consensus in that debate.—S Marshall T/C 18:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article (not previously counted), and endorse the closure. I particularly object to the statement "they liked it because it promoted their POV", which misstates the arguments. That this issue has been raised repeatedly suggests an attempt to win by exhaustion, and that itself should be a point against. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close (declaring prior interest, as I argued to keep), per J. Johnson, Tigerboy and others. I think the closing admin carefully considered all arguments presented; he has defended his closing arguments at User_talk:SilkTork#List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming. --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, SilkTork has yet to respond to my questions regarding what seems to me to be clearly an abuse of process, in that he considered 'arguments' (his own) that weren't presented in the AfD discussion at all. This is the fundamental issue here.

Andy, that's not quite a fair comment, imo: Silk Tork has explained that he will be offline for a few days, and he is being cooperative and civil in discussing his close. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the time I made it, it was entirely reasonable: check the timestamps. SilkTork had made a substantial number of edits after I posted my question, without any response - he had apparently chosen not to respond until I asked the same question again. That he has responded since I posted the above is no indication of any unfairness at the time it was posted. And yes, have had a civil discussion - can I suggest that you not suggest otherwise by implying unfairness on my part? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree your discussion with Silk Tork was/is civil, but I don't think an out-of-date comment should be left hanging here. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: this appeal, by the editor proposing the 4th AfD, hasn't yet been posted at List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (UPDATE: now posted by a 3rd party, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)), and the arguments to overturn appear to be a reprise of his prior arguments for deletion. --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the comments by the person initially calling for review (and by others arguing one way or another about the merits of the article), there is a more fundamental issue, which must be addressed - is it legitimate to close an AfD based not on the discussion, but on WP:OTHERGOODSTUFFEXISTS and on other matters not even raised? I don't believe for one moment it is, and until this issue is addressed, any further discussion on the article are moot. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the OP, 86*** helps his case by remarking "Oh, come the HELL on" and "That's bullshit" over at Silk Tork's talk page. --Pete Tillman (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so either - though I can understand his/her frustration. Now how about actually responding to my concerns? (For the record, SilkTork has now replied to my questions on his talk page, though I'm unconvinced that his answers actually address the real problem). AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that SilkTork now regrets mentioning the parent article, but I found his explanations for this, and for his closing statement, reasonable and convincing. Other editors (and the closing admin for this review) should read them at his talk page, and judge for themselves. --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but it wasn't SilkTork mentioning the 'parent article' that was the problem - it was that he considered it relevant in the first place. He clearly based his decision on factors not discussed in the AfD - factors, moreover that are of no relevance to a proper AfD closure. Yes, others should read SilkTorks comments - though I can't help wondering if he might have been better off responding here - or is that not appropriate in a deletion review? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to No Consensus or at least Relist (which is going to happen to this article anyway, because it's clearly not tenable), the close doesn't reflect the discussion at all. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and have it re-closed, perhaps by a triumvurate which would reduce the risk of error and give the final decision some legitimacy after 4 AFDs. This close trespassed way past the blurry line I referred to in the DRV above. Maybe "keep" was the right outcome; maybe not. On my reading of the closing statement, the statement discloses that the admin preferred one side of the argument and applied the admin's own view of applicable policies to the admin's own view of the facts (eg the sources). --Mkativerata (talk) 01:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn This closure was shockingly horrible. At best there is non consensus here, and there is no way that the strength of argument leaned towards "keep." Add to that the fact that the closing admin made novel arguments in the close, and used the existence of another article in his rationale. Andy is right, this was an abuse of process. Now we find out that the closing admin also made this controversial closure just before a planned hiatus from Wikipedia, which boggles my mind.Griswaldo (talk) 03:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a small clarification: SilkTork indicated that he will be away over the weekend (running a marathon) - not a major hiatus as I see it, though inconvenient. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I have already made some comments on my talkpage regarding this close, and I'm not sure how much I can add here which will be of benefit. It is possible that regardless of the outcome of the AfD there would have been people who would have been dissatisfied, and a DRV would have been called. In the circumstances, given that nobody is going to be satisfied, a no consensus close would have been less contentious and more diplomatic. I would have liked the chance to consider altering the close to no consensus, however, within 45 minutes of first contact on my talkpage, and while I was still engaged in discussion, and was making an offer to look again at the close, this DRV was opened, and shortly after that the DRV above which also names me was opened by a SPA which may be seen by some as an attempt to suggest that my judgement is generally poor. Of course it is possible that my judgement was poor in this case, which is why I was willing to look again, and which is why I am comfortable that we have the DRV process to check if a decision that was made did overlook something. Closers are human and are fallable, and even though closing in good faith and with care may err. I do agree that my closing statement had the potential to misdirect people. The mention of the Global warming article was to illustrate my opening point that an article with contentious subject matter and/or other problems is not neccessarily grounds for deletion, but grounds for improving through discussion and editing. That opening viewpoint was separate and additional to an assessment of consensus in the AfD. It can be struck as it makes no difference to the close. I would say though, looking again, that I over-emphasized the strength of opinion that the article could be cleaned up, there are a significant number of people in this AfD who feel that the issues are not resolvable through editing. I don't think I made clear enough that I had looked at the arguments for deletion, which are mainly based on concerns of original research and biased point of view, and felt those concerns were addressed in the discussion and by relevant policies and guidelines. Warden's evidence that there are reliable publications which talk about the "The Scientist Deniers" (that is a group of "scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming", the specific topic of the article under question) was compelling, and fitted in with our inclusion guidelines and policies. We summarise the ideas and knowledge that are published by reliable sources. That reliable sources feel compelled to write not just about the debate itself, but about the group of scientists who do not agree with the mainstream view, indicate that we should have an article on them. From reading the views in the discussion and consulting the policies and guidelines I concluded that the topic was viable, and a keep close was appropriate. That the article we have is a poor quality one has clearly caused people concern, and that is why I felt it appropriate to offer not just a close summary, but a suggestion that editing and discussion was an appropriate solution to the problems. I accept that in the circumstances it would have been better if I had stuck to the deletion debate, and offered suggestions on opening a RFC on the article talkpage afterwards. I have found the comments on my close to be instructive, and will take on board what I have learned. I will in future consider more closely the option of closing as no consensus, and will clearly separate or even withhold any extraneous comments. Should my close be changed to no consensus? Possibly - though is that because the issue needs discussing further or because it is a bordeline issue which cannot be resolved? I wouldn't like to see this matter drag on - this is the seventh discussion (five AfDs and two DRVs) - and it would be good to draw a line under it and get on with editing to see if that will resolve the matter. But if people feel that more discussion would be worthwhile, then perhaps a relisting would be worth considering. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you would consider rewriting your closing statement and posting it here for discussion? I'd hate to see your standing, and/or motivation for taking on difficult closes, suffer as a result of this review. I'm impressed with the amount of thought and effort you put into the close (caveat: I agree with your decision), and with your cordiality and civility when your decision was attacked. You've clearly learned not to stick in extraneous stuff, like the comment on the parent FA. Wikipedia needs more admins like you! Hope the race goes well, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, as has been said repeatedly, we do have an article on global warming deniers - it's called global warming controversy. This article serves as a WP:POVFORK of that one. No references - not one - has been offered to show that such lists of people have ever been made before, or that such large numbers of people are notable on the denier side. 86.** IP (talk) 06:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm concerned that if the sentence, "The parent article, Global warming, has also been a major cause of concern, but through careful editing (and ArbCom sanctions) is now a Featured Article", is part of the logic leading to a keep, it may be worth researching if it contains a factual error. The wording implies that careful editing and ArbCom sanctions led to FA status for Global warming. That article was promoted to FA on May 17, 2006, according to the 'Article milestones' on its talkpage. I don't know of any ArbCom sanctions that could have led to improvements in that article prior to that date (although I don't know how to reliably search all ArbCom sanctions prior to that date to confirm this). I'm just worried that the implication, from the preceding sentence, about the article causing "concern" due to the "controversial nature of the subject matter" rather than due to policy-based reasoning, may be that the editors of these climate change articles are such a rowdy bunch that unless they are given very strict policing, they can't get anything much done. I do not think that is a good basis for an admin decision, I do not think it is true, and I do not think it can be verified from the actual facts as stated. --Nigelj (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  There were two arbitration proceedings on the general topic area of climate change that occurred during 2005. Climate change dispute 1 and Climate change dispute 2. The sanctions imposed narrowly addressed a few individuals, and I don't want to speculate what the impact was towards FA promotion, but climate change related work and editors have been in and out of arbitration for a long time. However, many of the cases focus on specific individuals rather than the entire topic area, and it is only relatively recently that broad sanctions have been placed across the entire topic area. Dragons flight (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the links. Yes, I don't see any direct evidence there that the sanctions imposed contributed to the parent article, Global warming, becoming FA. --Nigelj (talk) 07:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  They didn't. There has been no Arbcom case that directly influenced the global warming article. All of the Arbcom cases have been about periphery articles, user conduct and in one case about changes in reference style. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and delete - I'm actually scratching my head as to how that was closed "keep". Sandstein above is right that the closure was done on the basis of wrong-headed "vote counting" rather than consideration of policy and, specifically, the policy-related reasons that were or were not given by the participants in that discussion. Volunteer Marek  03:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it had been done on the basis of "vote counting" it would have gone the other way. In any case, given that SilkTork has conceded that his 'keep' decision was questionable, I cannot see any alternative here to declaring the result null and void: or as 'no consensus', in which case another AfD will undoubtedly be started soon, given the issues raised. Either way, this AfD has achieved little beyond illustrating that controversial AfDs need careful closing, with all significant comments actually addressed, and with no suggestion that the closing admin is bringing in issues not discussed at the AfD. Basically, if there are issues which should have been raised, the prospective 'closing' admin should instead raise them in the AfD itself, and leave the closure to another - I note that this is precisely what admin Sandstein did: [3] - If Sandstein had taken SilkTork's attitude to the closure, it would have been closed as a delete. Actually, I'd like to see SilkTork's response to Sandstein on this. How can it be possible to read Sandstein, and then ignore the fundamental point about 'supervotes'? I think that, yet again, this illustrates that SilkTork's decision was not based on a proper assessment of the arguments presented at the AfD, and therefore cannot be allowed to stand. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and re-list. Or at the very least, overturn to no-consensus (I won't repeat the arguments already given above). If the article has seen improvements, then a new round of AfD should show a stronger consensus in one direction or the other. Cutting the laundry-list of quotations and merging the result into a parent controversy article would be a good choice too. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. The close was essentially an administrator !voting rather than a proper procedural close. It would be a good idea to get a wider swathe of the community to review what happened and get more input at the very least. 76.119.90.74 (talk) 23:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse my close. Having had a chance to revisit the AfD, I can see I followed procedure and assessed the arguments raised in the discussion against our policies and guidelines. The topic is sourced and notable as pointed out in the discussion. It meets our inclusion criteria. The main concerns in the AfD discussion were that the article violated some aspect of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and/or Wikipedia:No original research. I did examine those concerns, and found the arguments against these concerns were quite compelling - particularly that the article was linked from within related articles in an appropriate manner, and that there are reliable sources which discuss the "global warming deniers". A reading of WP:UNDUE, which was cited as a concern, shows that the way to treat "fringe theories" is to have a standalone article which discusses the matter - which is what this one is doing. A concern that there are other articles which already treat the topic is also addressed in the discussion by pointing out that this article is part of a set which deals with different aspects of the topic.

This DRV was brought as it was felt that I hadn't given enough consideration to all the deletion arguments, and that I introduced new arguments in the manner of a supervote. I agree that I gave a general comment on the need to clean up the article, and gave a suggestion as to a way forward on that, and I also gave the view that the main problem with the article was that the subject matter was contentious rather than it fitted our deletion guidelines. At the time I was thinking that it would be helpful to put the discussion in some form of context and suggest a way forward. Given that this is a contentious subject, and that the outcome of the AfD would likely lead to a DRV regardless of the outcome, that was unwise of me, though was not part of a supervote. I've looked again at the deletion arguments and I agree that I did not give enough weight to those who felt that the article was not editable - however, a belief that a contentious topic is not editable is not grounds for deletion, and is countered by examples of excellent articles on contentious subjects. On Wikipedia we do not avoid notable topics because they are difficult. There are no BLP issues as the statements are all sourced as being said by the people concerned.

I have looked again to see if "no consensus" is the more appropriate close, as there were more !deletes than !keeps; however, the arguments put forward by those saying "keep" were more in line with our policies and guidelines, and arguments for "delete" were adequately addressed within the discussion. The wider consensus of our policies and guidelines over-rules any WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, unless the local discussion provides a convincing argument for why the policies and guidelines do not apply in that instance. This AfD discussion did not provide that convincing argument. I can see a political and social sense in which a "no consensus" close would be fitting, and would be quite comfortable with the close being changed to "no consensus", though I feel my close of "keep" was within due process. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are making yet more of your own arguments for keeping the page, and for opposing the delete arguments. You are exemplifying the supervote you made in the first place right here, right now. You are not to refute delete arguments in your close, or in the reasoning of your close as you do above -- which is not the same as showing how "keep" arguments made by others adequately answered "delete" concerns. I think you acted in good faith, but I'm beginning to believe there is a competence issue here when it comes to the difference between a supervote and a proper close. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide an example of an argument that I used in the AfD close that is a supervote argument. It would be helpful for me to look at it carefully - at the moment I seem to be missing it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy already pointed out above that your suggestion about the "parent article" and its status as a FA amounts to this, but here's another one:

• Lists by their nature sometimes fly close to OR as there are sometimes no sources available which group items together the way that Wikipedia lists do. However, the list appears to meet MOS:LIST, and provides both information and navigation.

You made your own interpretation of how lists do and/or do not fit with the original research policy here. This was done through a claim that I can't find made by anyone in the discussion that the list meets MOS:LIST and that the original research arguments made by "delete" voters are contravened by that part of the manual of style. I happen to disagree with your assessment here, but that's neither here nor there. The point is that you are making these arguments on your own, not repeating them because they were a major part of the arguments made by others. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned by the amount of comments saying that they feel my close was a supervote. I am called upon on occasion to close tricky discussions, to help out at disputes and look into POV issues in articles. This is because I am seen to strive to be balanced and neutral, and to be quite firm on following policies and guidelines. I would like to closely examine this, as it does have implications for my future involvement in closing tyricky discussions. I am aware that my general comments which included mention of another article did have potential to be misread. I have taken that onboard and am comfortable that the existence of another article did not impact on my close decision, but that mentioning it was unwise and misleading. I am unclear, however, how mentioning a relevant policy or guideline can be considered a supervote. This is a concern to me, as my understanding is that any closer should be taking policies into account especially if they have not been raised in the discussion. How is referring to the wider consensus outlined in policies and guidelines somehow inappropriate? Any closer who is looking purely at the local discussion and disregarding wider consensus is surely not appropriately applying consensus? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information comply with core content policies...These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether an article violates these content policies. (WP:DGFA). However that's not applicable to the situation you describe, partly because it is talking about core content policies such as verifiability, NPOV and BLP (MOS:LIST is a style guideline) and partly because it is talking about situations where the closing administrator can overrule local consensus and delete something, not keep it. MOS:LIST wasn't mentioned in the discussion, and for good reason. It describes what the purposes of lists are, and if a list doesn't fulfil one of those purposes then that would be an argument for deleting it. This doesn't mean that a list should be kept if it passes MOS:LIST because there could be other things wrong with it. Hut 8.5 10:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to what Hut wrote, your personal interpretations here do not amount to clear cut policy enforcement, which is what you're implying. Where do you get the idea that a style guideline contravenes concerns with BLP and OR policies? As I pointed out already that argument was never made in the discussion, and as Hut adds it wasn't made for good reason. You claim to be appealing to a broader consensus outside the discussion but I don't see it anywhere. If you are going to make such an appeal you better have some good evidence at hand, like prior community wide RfCs, or other discussions which clearly support your interpretation (and yes it is an interpretation and not a clear cut policy matter as I already stated). Another point Hut made also bares repeating. The relevant portion of WP:DGFA is about cases where articles need to be deleted because they are in violation of policy. Whereas policy might dictate the need to delete an article there is no policy imperative to keep any article. There never is. The editors who behave as if there is are a very well known minority here on Wikipedia (I think we all know who they are). If you allow their minority opinion to form a basis for making controversial closes you are not, in my opinion, fit to make such closes. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DGFA says, in bold in the original: 4.When in doubt, don't delete. That sounds to me like a pretty clear-cut policy basis for not deleting articles unless there is clear consensus or clear core policy violation, neither of which I believe to be the case here. --Merlinme (talk) 13:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a completely different argument, and not one that either SilkTork has made, nor one that addresses the current criticism of his close either. If there isn't a clear consensus and there isn't a clear core policy violation the correct close is "no consensus" which, as you must realize, also amounts to not deleting the entry (also fulfills "don't delete"). Had SilkTork closed in that manner we would not be here right now. SilkTork's argument is that he closed as keep (which is beyond not deleting) based on what he claims is an obvious reading of policy/guidelines about lists. He ignored the lack of consensus, in other words, for his own reading of policy. If you don't see the difference here I'm not sure I can help you, but it is pretty huge. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to your statement that "there is no policy imperative to keep any article", which seemed to me to be being used as an argument that the article should be deleted, as several people in this discussion have been arguing (and which I can see little or no basis for). I've already argued in favour of an overturn to No consensus. I apologise if I misunderstood your position.--Merlinme (talk) 14:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked again at my closing statement. It is a poor piece of writing, and certainly the worse close I've written. If I subtract the additional comments all that is left is this: "The main concerns about this article are that it is original research and is not neutral. Arguments of fringe and undue are well countered both by the sources provided by Warden, and by awareness, as pointed out by NewsAndEventsGuy, that the article is prose linked in related articles on Wikipedia (not just templated)." The additional views, not essential to the close, are very misleading, and - as I have agreed earlier - I do not adequately deal with the delete views. I have accepted from the first query that the statement wasn't clear, but as I understood my own close, and the thinking that led to it, I felt that the close was acceptable. What I was looking at was: 1) Does this article meet our inclusion criteria? The answer is yes - and the arguments and evidence for that are found in the discussion. 2) Does this article meet our deletion criteria? The concerns were OR and POV, and I found those concerns addressed within the discussion in the article, so the answer is no. Having found those two main questions answered I found that there was no consensus to delete, and that as the concerns had been appropriately addressed, the outcome was keep. I then made additional comments that have clouded the issue. The main discussion about my close is that I made a supervote by including those additional comments; my argument has been that those additional comments were not essential to the close, and so - while unwise - did not impact the close. As an extension of that discussion, there is the question regarding how much a closer should not consult or make reference to relevant guidelines and policies. My understanding is that a closer should be aware of the relevant guidelines and policies. The sticking point here, perhaps, is if the advice of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists consists of sufficient Wikipedia consensus, and/or is relevant enough to be consulted in an AfD discussion - it is a MoS guideline after all, rather than an inclusion guideline. I did not use that guideline as part of my keep assessment, but used it as part of the contentious additional comments; however, be that as it may, mentioning it has added to the confusion here, and I fully accept that.

Where I am now with this, is thinking that I did not fully take into account the delete concerns, and apply the third question: 3) Are there arguments here that allow special considerations to apply? My feeling at the time was that the arguments that the article was POV and OR were adequately addressed within the discussion, and so a keep was the right outcome; however, looking again I can see that there are sufficient genuine concerns that the article is and will remain problematic to allow a "no consensus" close. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"There are no BLP issues as the statements are all sourced as being said by the people concerned". Really? To quote admin Sandstein: "In the light of WP:BLP, a list of living people selected on the basis of having taken a controversial position should only be compiled if the person is explicitly stated by a reliable source to have taken the controversial position. But in this case, editors have applied their own judgment as to whether the quoted statements constitute "opposition to the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming", which is inadmissible original research". I would like to see a proper response from SilkTork on Sandstein,s comments at the AfD [4]. SilkTork and Sandstein have evidently reached entirely contrary conclusions regarding the article, but whereas Sandstein was prepared to make arguments in the debate, SilkTork took it upon himself to impose a decision by fiat, apparently disregarding fundamental tenets of Wikipedia policy regarding BLP's and OR. Is it really acceptable to have an Arbitrary list of people we've decided have a particular opinion about something controversial on Wikipedia? I hope not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you actually think that it's not possible for something to be a BLP violation if it has a citation? That position is seriously at odds with consensus on the issue, to put it mildly. Hut 8.5 16:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has been discussed before (and is being discussed again) the best way to present the citations, and whether the quotes should be additionally supported by secondary sources describing them as sceptics. I don't see this, in itself, as a reason to delete the article, as it's a content question which could be resolved by changing the format of the article.

Clearly something can be a BLP violation even if it has a citation; most obviously, the citation could be wrong. For example journalistic reporting of a person's beliefs could be incorrect. However we ascribe positions in biographical articles to people all the time based on material they've published themselves, and/ or third party reporting of their beliefs; for example no-one would question whether Richard Dawkins is an atheist, and I don't see why anyone would question whether Richard Lindzen is a consensus sceptic. Richard Lindzen is described in the lead of that article as "a well known skeptic of global warming". --Merlinme (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a degree of not making points clear, and for that I apologise. The principle that you cannot have a list of global warming deniers is refuted by evidence brought up in the discussion that there is a group of such people, and there will not be a BLP issue if a statement has a reliable source, such as the sources that are in the article or were raised in the AfD discussion. Sources such as this show that such a list is well within our policies. That is not to say, of course, that the article at some point now, in the past, or in the future will not have problems because some people are inappropriately included or inappropriately sourced - but such problems are common to many articles and are not grounds for deletion of the whole article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

respectfully, that's one part of the problems, and you've never yet responded to any of the other ones. The list, in structure and function, exists to push a POV. It's a type of list known to be used as a propaganda tool. Noone else has ever constructed such a lits that can be found. It serves as a WP:COATRACK to push a pov, and fundamentally, in its construction, violates WP:UNDUE. Editing will not fix any of these problems, short of cutting the list down to nothing but a list of names, which the WP:POVPUSHers will not allow under any circumstances, particularly not when you close it as "Keep", thus giving them all the justificatoin they need to keep violating core policy. . 86.** IP (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

O, I fully accept that people have concerns that the article is a POV vehicle. I also accept that the article is problematic. What I looked at were the relevant policies and guidelines and what people said in the discussion to address or refute those concerns. What I found convincing, and which I mentioned in my close, and which I keep restating, but which is perhaps not being given due credit, is that Warden put forward arguments and evidence that reliable sources are dealing with the topic of the global warming deniers, and as such the topic becomes appropriate for Wikipedia. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even LOOK at Warden's references? They mention a couple people, yes. They dio not mention the dozens of names seen here. 86.** IP (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Those sources list more than "a couple of people". Per WP:LISTN, "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.". The sources present these people as a group or set. Q.E.D. Warden (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are you banging on about notability? That's not the issue here. Hut 8.5 19:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case anyone wonders aboout Warden's sources

I looked at them. They don't justify the list at all.

• http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8Z85BOS90GkC&pg=PA401#v=onepage&q&f=false lists 8 names, doesn't discuss their arguments.
• http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Es1AqDejza0C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false Doesn't appear, on a quick lookover, to have any significant discussion of particular denialists. It's a historic overview starting in the enlightenment. Page number?
• http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=gDcUQgAACAAJ Buggered if I know, book isn't searchable. I don't doubt it discusses a few people who oppose climate change, but it'd need to be a very large number to be relevant to this debate. It also appears dubious in its ability to stand as a WP:RS.
• http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=YKaOOcWyNywC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false - Again, have to do a quick look, since it's a several-hundred page book. It discusses a few climate change deniers in context, but doesn't do anything like this list of POV-pushing quotes, since, you know, it provides actual context and discussion of their claims.
• http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RsYr_iQUs6QC&pg=PA151#v=onepage&q&f=false Mentions three climate change deniers in the section that link directs you to. A rather pitiful attempt to justify a gigantic list.

These sources do not show that such a list is viable, encyclopedic, nor do they justify making the list a giant WP:COATRACK of denialist claims. 86.** IP (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you even understand the argument in favour of deleting the page. Even if the article was impeccably sourced to third-party references that directly supported the material quoted in the article and there are abundant lists of global warming deniers out there in reliable sources that is completely and totally irrelevant to the question of whether the existence of this article is neutral and thus does not refute the arguments in favour of deletion. It's true that there is abundant coverage of people who don't think global warming exists (or who don't think it's manmade) and that it is in principle possible to write a neutral article on them, which is why we have an article at Global warming controversy. It doesn't mean that it is possible to have a neutral article at List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Hut 8.5 17:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, SilkTork seems to be trying to assert the validity of his 'supervote', while dismissing the reasoned concerns of those who point out the BLP and OR concerns in an arbitrary list compiled by Wikipedia editors on a controversial subject. Searching out individuals who meet Wikipedia's own self-generated criteria, with the express intention of including them on a list, is original research. This is self-evident. If SilkTork considers such behaviour to be appropriate to Wikipedia, he should call for policy to be revised. As of now, it is totally contrary to norms, and a violation of not only WP:OR but WP:BLP policy. The opinions of the individuals listed is diverse (or at least appears to be, from the material concerned - it cannot be presented as evidence for current beliefs), and the suggestion that there is a singe 'group' of 'global warming deniers' is itself therefore highly questionable - they often appear to have nothing in common in their criticisms, and have been lumped together to imply that the scientific consensus on the matter is weaker than it is. That other sources may have attempted the same POV stunt is rather beside the point - it is still material gathered to push a POV - in Wikipedia terms, a POV-fork. It stinks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn -- the close as written appears to be a supervote on the merits instead of an evaluation of the arguments. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as per several others who are concerned about the super-vote appearance of the closing rationale; Griswaldo's remarks are very persuasive. I'd prefer to see it deleted because of the coatrack and OR potential, but no consensus is not an unreasonable close based on the arguments provided in the AfD. Horologium (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Close AFD is not about counting numbers. Its about judging what was said. Many sources were given providing the subject notable. The article list people who have their own Wikipedia articles, and list the quote of what they have said about this. Their comments have all gotten news coverage. Rather encyclopedic article, since you can easily see what notable people covered in the media as being experts on this subject have stated about this subject. Dream Focus 22:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, really. Show me proof that these have been covered in the media as experts on the subject. Because that's never once been mentioned in connection to this list. 86.** IP (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I search for the first name on the list, and the word "global warming" and Google news archive search shows 189 results. [5] Here is a New York Times article about his belief concerning global warming [6]. So references aren't really an issue here. If the mass of references already in the article aren't enough, you can easily use Google news archive search to find more. Dream Focus 00:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Being covered in the news is not one of the list's criteria, and you'd need to demonstrate that was true for all (or at least a majority) of the names in the list before your argument was at all valid. Also, the media actually sometimes presents, you know, actual climate scientists as experts as well, so it's not like "who the media consider experts" is limited only to climate change denialists, or a unique grouping. 86.** IP (talk) 02:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Those who believe in global warming can have their own list then. No need to try to put them together, that not making any sense at all. Do you sincerely doubt that any of the names on the list won't have media coverage for their belief about global warming? This is something they get coverage for, therefor the list is valid. Dream Focus 02:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Do you sincerely doubt that any of the names on the list won't have media coverage for their belief about global warming?" Yes. until you provide the evidence, I do. Incidentally, that is 'beliefs', not 'belief' as the list makes clear - they don't all have even approximately the same views, all they have in common is that Wikipedia contributors think they belong on this arbitrary list. And no, we don't allow differing opinions to have their own articles - that is a POV fork, and clearly against policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Those who believe in global warming can have their own list then." I've said earlier in this discussion that the way to provide balanced coverage of a topic on Wikipedia is not to set up two soapboxes pushing opposite POVs. Reyk _YO! 03:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The closing admin made a decision (to introduce their arguments into their closing statement, as explained above), and is now sticking with their decision. While an understandable human reaction, it is not reasonable for a close on a topic like this to be based on a supervote. I might have missed it, but I see no explanation for how the close responded to the sound reasoning in the deletion discussion that a list of "scientists who have made statements that conflict with the mainstream assessment of global warming" can never be satisfactorily based on reliable secondary sources—such a list is the definition of cherry picking synthesis, a problem compounded by the need for editors to interpret most statements (as pointed out in the discussion, but not responded to in the close with more than a "These are editing issues" comment). Johnuniq (talk) 03:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is pointless. Whatever happens here the article will be up for deletion again soon and we will go through the whole process again and again and again. And there is no prospect of a consensus to delete. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 09:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't be so sure of that Tigerboy. Many of us are new to this discussion. I'm of the firm belief that if the next AfD has wider input from the community this OR quotefarm will be swimming with the fishes. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep trying until you get the results you want? Tragically, that does happen quite often. If they don't get their way, one of those who wanted to delete it before, will just nominate it again in a month or so, several times in a single year even, determined to game the system. Dream Focus 14:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There does seem to be some gaming going on. The nominator of the AFD ostensibly started editing this month. They started their objections to this article with their first post, not at its talk page, but at the Fringe Noticeboard and here they are, just a few days later, posting up a storm at DRV. How is that they are so expert in Wikipedia processes so quickly? My impression is that they are a banned editor, such as ScienceApologist, or one of the editors who was involved in the Arbcom case about Global warming articles. Warden (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If you are correct it has no bearing on the actual issue being discussed. For the record I had concerns myself when I first saw this editor post about the article at the FT/N, but that's really neither here nor there. If you think this is sock then file an SPI, but don't suggest that somehow the rest of us should be discounted based on that. That, Warden, would be gaming the system. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• You do realise, Warden, that 86 found out about the existence of DRV after I told them here (this is the proper forum for contesting closures of deletion discussions, after all)? And that, according to their user page, the user in question usually edits while logged out, so evidently they have other editing experience? Assume good faith please. Hut 8.5 15:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Campaigning about this matter over at the Fringe noticeboard was not good faith action — it was WP:CANVASSING, as I observed during the AFD. It maybe that 86 is just naive but he's something of a bull in a china shop. Even an innocuous list like List of vegetable oils sets him off and he starts making wild claims like there being no such thing as tomato seed oil. If he wants to be treated as a good faith editor then he should calm down and not treat everyone else like a wild-eyed fanatic. User:SilkTork seems to have handled the matter with some thought and care and he deserves better than all this second-guessing. Warden (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• So the fact that he posted a link to the AfD at the fringe theories noticeboard means it's OK to accuse him of sockpuppetry? Seriously? Hut 8.5 18:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If Colonel Warden has legitimate reasons for suspecting 86.** is a sock of a banned user, he can take it to SPI. Making unfounded accusations on an unrelated discussion seems like mud-smearing to me. Reyk _YO! 20:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Warden, the FT/N discussion was prior to the AfD so it was not canvassing. Also you must have missed the fact that SilkTork has not agreed with all the people who think this should have been a "no consensus." So I'm not sure what you are trying to say regarding that. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The canvassing post was this: "Hmm. Becoming a POV-fest. Lots of people claiming global warming denial isn't fringe, because... they hold the belief, so it's fine to have a huge POV push.". This was made during the discussion, not before it. Warden (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus. The concerns about the additional comments have sidetracked me somewhat. I have spent most of my time since closing the AfD, thinking about and discussing those additional comments. The comments were poor and unwise and have distracted people, however, they were not part of the close decision. The area, however, where I have more seriously erred is in the assessment of the delete comments. I have three questions I consider in an AfD - 1) Does this article meet our inclusion criteria? 2) Does this article meet our deletion criteria? and 3) Are there arguments here that allow special considerations to apply? I did not look closely enough at question 3. There are sufficient concerns raised about the potential POV of the article to allow a "no consensus" close to be made. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse reasonable close based on strength of arguments. --143.105.13.115 (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse close - there is nothing new under the sun, lets stop wasting our time on this William M. Connolley (talk) 10:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There is plenty new under the sun. Indeed the climate on our planet is constantly new under the sun, and not in a good way. Do you have an argument supporting this close or just resignation?Griswaldo (talk) 02:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - This article is clearly not going to get deleted at AfD. Overturning this to no consensus is useless, it will still not be deleted, and it will only encourage editors to start 19 more AfD's. —SW— ^converse 22:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• With respect you don't appear to be actually endorsing the close as the right decision, but commenting on the futility of trying to have the article deleted. The right decision on this AfD remains the right decision on this AfD regardless of how futile trying to delete the article is in the future. Griswaldo (talk) 02:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of important publications in biology (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Such a topic exists and is notable as references do exist, for example:

• [7]
• [8]

(Closing admin had been contacted)Curb Chain (talk) 09:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of important publications in sociology (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Such a topic exists and is notable as references do exist, for example:

• [9]
• [10]

Article was deleted because there were no references but this is not a reason for deletion but for fixing. Closing admin was contacted per Step1. Curb Chain (talk) 09:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closer's comment: The article was deleted because the selection of "important works" it contained was original research. As I noted on my talk page, the two sources that are now being supplied do not draw this assessment into question, because the works mentioned in these sources appear to be mostly or wholly different from the ones previously mentioned in the article. These sources, therefore, do not justify the restoration of a original research list that is not based on these sources. At most, they justify the recreation of the article in a form that is based on these sources. Even so, I doubt that a university's English-language-only reading list and a selection of publications in Canadian sociology are sufficient to be the basis of a list of the most important publications in all of sociology, from all countries and of all time, but that is an editorial decision.  Sandstein  09:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Inherent OR and subjective calls of what is "important". --Crusio (talk) 10:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist (or just overturn - added 19:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)) as incompatible with the later closes in most of the other afds. Though we don't go by precedent, some degree of consistency is important in an encyclopedia. As for the actual merits,, it was fully shown in the afds in general that that these are suitable topics, as documentation of what is considered particularly important is available in all fields. What will be supported by the documentation is a question for the editors of the restored article. We accept selected further reading in articles, and this is really just a break-out. Alternatively, just go ahead with the new list--since the content is admitted to be different, the objections do not apply, and it does not need agreement here--it would require another afd. I think the closer agrees on that--his opinion on the quality of it would be relevant as an argument in such an afd. Nobody is saying the new list is complete, so I don't see how its wrong to make a start & subsequently expand & discuss. DGG ( talk ) 15:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist - As the list in the original article differed from the list provided in the sources, a recreated article using the sources would be a completely different article. Therefore, I think we need to be able to reconsider the new list, in light of the sources provided. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a recreated article using the sources would be a completely different article. But nothing prevents editors from writing that new article. That new article could in turn be made subject to a new AfD, as DGG says above, but I do not see how relisting the discussion about the old article, which is not based on these sources, could help here.  Sandstein  20:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the list needs to be sourced, and importance of each entry made clear. But it's easier to start with the existing material. Please move this list to the incubator as it was done with the biology one. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 00:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this helps. We seem to agree that entries on such lists must be sourced. It is better to find sources first and to rewrite the article based on these sources, than to try to find sources for already existing entries. When this article was briefly restored via copy-paste, the DRV submitter simply appended his new sources to the list and called them "references", even though they have nothing to do with the list content. This sort of intellectual dishonesty should not be made too easy. Instead, the list needs to be rewritten from the ground up.  Sandstein  06:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn There were 7 keeps and only 2 deletes so to find a consensus for deletion in this is absurd and contrary to WP:DGFA which expects closers to "...respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants.". The keepers included experienced editors such as DGG, who is a professional librarian at Princeton and so speaks with authority upon the importance of academic publications. The issue of sourcing was well addressed by Mike Cline who pointed to the International bibliography of sociology which seems quite respectable. The result of the other similar AFDs in this spree shows that this was an aberrant close, contrary to the consensus of this and the other discussions. Warden (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• aberrant close??? I would call all the rest aberrant keeps in contradiction of policy's and guidelines. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 02:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn (1st choice) or relist. The argument that using reliable sources to termine what is important in a field is inherently WP:OR is absurd, and it has been refuted in many of the sister AfDs, so this argument alone cannot be used to determine the fate of this list. Wikipedians use WP:DUE every day to include or exclude material from many articles. If this "DUE judgement = OR" applied to all pages, Wikipedia would cease to function. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the case here is different though because an entry must be "important". That's the cusp of the problem and the argument is that it IS WP:OR to determine what is and what is not important.Curb Chain (talk) 05:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - WP:OR, WP editors are not to be deciding what is "important", reliable secondary sources are. WP:LISTN was never satisfied as no list was never pointed to "as a group or set " to make the List itself Notable. (Personally, I don't feel a bibliography counts here as they are just listings of everything.) Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 02:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • LISTN was never brought up in that discussion. I suspect the criteria did not even exist in June 2010. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 02:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • So your saying that this list grandfathers the current guidelines, policies & consensus? ... no. Put it in Userspace and fixit so it conforms, rather than revive something that does not satisfy basic WP:N for its existence in mainspace. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 06:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I asked Sandstein above to move it to WikiProject space, because that's what happened to the biology list. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 06:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn (without prejudice toward relisting) In this case, there was a clear majority of voters who argued that the article satisfied the list guideline. While the arguments of the delete voters may have been a bit stronger, I don't think that the keep voters were far enough from the established guideline to permit discounting their votes. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I think Sandstein's closure was reasonable. WP:OR is a core, fundamental policy, and arguments along the lines of "it has inclusion criteria", "it meets MOS:LIST" or "it's useful" do not address that concern. If someone does want to write a different version sourced to references such as the one above then I don't see that there's anything to stop them. Alternatively if someone wants to use the AfDed version as a starting point it could be userfied. Hut 8.5 18:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep The majority of people there said it was not original resource, and that the criteria for inclusion in the article was quite specific. Its casting a supervote to ignore them, and simply state your own opinion that the word "important" in the title somehow instantly made it original research. We had that same discussion in a group of other list articles that had the word "important" in them, all them ending in keep as I recall, since no one could think of a better word to use, and it was clearly defined in its use at the top of each article. Would the closing administrator have been satisfied if the name of the article was List of publications in sociology seen as notable enough by the media to be commented on and which also have their own articles in Wikipedia? Dream Focus 22:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wizard (American band) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The explanation of the subject's significance was in the lead. It was an important, even if short-lived band and the AllMusic refs provided all the explanation that was needed on that. Speedy deletion in such cases, I think, is something quite unacceptable. -- Evermore2 (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was the admin who deleted it. I felt it did not pass A7 when I hit delete but if there is consensus that it should be undeleted I will not oppose. Aside from that I am neutral. Alexandria (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the matter closed. -- Evermore2 (talk) 14:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]