East Asian myths about the evolution of folded eyelids – snow endorse. I almost closed this yesterday per WP:SNOW and WP:DRVPURPOSE and almost imposed a block myself per WP:NOTHERE, and WP:NOTTHISSHITAGAIN, but cooled down and decided to wait. Glad to see some other janitor swept up this particular mess – -- RoySmith (talk) 13:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
East Asian myths about the evolution of folded eyelids (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) This article was originally deleted because of the title. Your excuse was about the title. Your excuse for deletion was that the title was wrong. That the content was about the myths while the title was about evolution. Hence, your nonsense doesn't apply when the title is set as myths. There is nothing to change in the article. It is properly referenced. How does your excuse for removal apply when the title is different? When you deleted the previous "The evolution of folded eyelids", your excuse was that it didn't say anything about evolution specifically whilst the content was about the existing myths in the topic. So, I recreated using the different article title. I named the title "myths" & the content was about "myths". Why did you delete this time? If you are claiming it is not referenced because you can't read Korean despite me having already summarized the quoted newspaper, that's your problem. That doesn't make it not referenced. If you are claiming that a reference in foreign language can't be used, I would like to see that rule as I've seen plenty of foreign references. It's a specifically existing topic of significant facts (as in being notable). The article specifically mentioned "here are existing claims". That's very concrete for going over the "existing claims & myths". How much more concrete can you get for introducing existing myths than "here are the myths". Also, it was properly referenced. Also, the relevant scientific facts & historical records were very related to the myths because they were the opposite. Wikibreaking (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Comment from AfD participant: The original deletion discussion was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolution of folded eyelids. The article was subsequently re-created twice at this title, and has now been moved to Draft:East Asian myths about the evolution of folded eyelids. Please ping me with questions, if any, otherwise I will let the DRV continue without further input so fresh eyes can evaluate. Crow^Caw 22:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] How come this is still not touched? This isn't complicated. Some administrators made false claims & closed this article. We just have to go over their specific claims & how they don't apply if having a different title. Referenced notable facts are being banned right now. Wikibreaking (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] This is still not touched, so I am following up. Basically, I introduced "here are the existing myths in this topic of evolution." Then, I linked the related relevant scientific & ethnological facts in East Asia. Then, the article was deleted because "virtually nothing in this article is validly sourced" (which is false claim because I linked research institutes & newspapers) & "you are wrong in considering that "worthy of interest" means "notable"." (which is false because the article was notable by being an existing topic of significant facts) & "The topic of how folded eyelids evolved could be interesting, but this article sheds no light on the subject. It states right up front that there is no scientific information on the subject" (which is irrelevant as I was introducing myths instead of talking about the actual evolution). So, 2 of them are false claims, and the last one doesn't apply if the title is not on the evolution but on the myths. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Evolution_of_folded_eyelids Wikibreaking (talk) 02:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] While the ban on the myths is reviewed, as for the later part on Korean eyes, I made a separate article for that part only. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_eyes Now, just have to finish this talk on the first part (the myths being introduced). Are you claiming that the myths don't exist? I provided a newspaper reference introducing the myths. Are you claiming that the reference is fake? That makes you a liar & you are not even qualified if you can't verify the newspaper article. Or are you claiming that the related scientific facts quoted from the research institutes shouldn't be included? They are related facts speaking against the myths; they should be included; they are within the topic & they are properly referenced. Wikibreaking (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Since notability is being used as an excuse, let's specifically quote the rule. Quoting on notability, ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail" & "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability Wikibreaking (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolution of folded eyelids. Reasonably well-attended, weight of both policy and numbers overwhelmingly on the "delete" side. Thparkth (talk) 02:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Be very specific in your claims. Which part is wrong why? Wikibreaking (talk) 02:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. The arguments for deletion were, in fact, unusually well-reasoned and definitely based on policy (and the participants explained those policies in some detail as well.) This is not a new deletion discussion for the article, it is an evaluation of whether the previous discussion followed Wikipedia policy, which it did. There was only one possible way to close the discussion: as "delete". --bonadea contributions talk 09:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] ~~Endorse~~. Closure was in line with the consensus. Will User:Wikibreaking please place his/her signature on the same line rather than a new line, as this is breaking formatting. Will Wikibreaking also note that the question is on whether the administrator has followed deletion process properly. Deletion review is not a venue to advance new arguments (or repeat old ones) about the article nor to assert that the consensus was wrong. Stifle (talk) 12:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Amending my comment to speedy close per WP:DRVPURPOSE items 5 and 8 under "deletion review should not be used". Stifle (talk) 09:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Well, I feel incensed. My article was legitimately referenced, it talked about notable topics that are existing covered topics, the arguments for deletion were lies. But since you keep on insisting your bullshits anyway, forget the myth part but focus on the Korean eyes part. I had created a new article on Korean eyes without the myth part, but it got deleted because I had talked about Korean eyes while talking about the myths. How is this fair? You know what? I am going to create a new petition for this.Wikibreaking (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] I created a separate petition for the Korean eyes part. After setting that straight, I am going to resubmit this petition again because you administrators made false claims (be very specific in logic instead of lying) in notability (it's an existing covered topic) & the legitimacy (all those sources are legitimate) of references.Wikibreaking (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] You are not processing this nowhere near properly at all. For now, I am splitting the content (about the myths on eyelids) into 2 separate parts. I am uploading an article specifically on Korean eyes first. That new article is being deleted because it was a part of this article. Look into this please. If you are not doing anything by tomorrow, I am resubmitting the petition since you are not looking at this post or something.Wikibreaking (talk) 01:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Korean eyes (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) I originally had created an article on myths on eyelids. It got deleted. I feel incensed. My article was legitimately referenced, it talked about notable topics that are existing covered topics, the arguments for deletion were lies. But since you keep on insisting your bullshits anyway, forget the myth part but focus on the Korean eyes part. I had created a new article on Korean eyes without the myth part, but it got deleted because I had talked about Korean eyes while talking about the myths (which got deleted). How is this fair? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_eyes Wikibreaking (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Here is the content. Wikibreaking (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] There is a claim that the term Mongoloid refers to only Mongolian, Eskimo Siberian, etc. (Such that "Chinese isn't Mongoloid".) Unlike such claim, the definition differs. The term refers to the yellow people in general. Also, Uralic, Turkic, Altaic blood is little in Mongolian. That blood (Y-haplogroup N) is genetically different from Eskimo Siberian (Y-haplogroup C). Quoting from "The Earth and Its Inhabitants" by Elisee Reclus, "The national type seems to have been best preserved amongst the Khalkhas, who also claim a certain superiority over the other branches on the ground that amongst them are the families of the Taitsi, descendants of Jenghiz Khan. Yet the Khalkha least resembles the typical Mongol type, as described by most ethnologists. He is rather brown than yellow, with open eyes, not inclined obliquely, like those of the Chinese or Ostiaks." ^[1] One of the Mongoloid traits is small mono-eyelids like Chinese, Ostiaks, Eskimo Siberians, but Khalkhas differ from such types. Korea historically has been perceived as the mixture of the East Asian aboriginals & Altaic nomads (like Khalkhas) from Central Asia. This nomadic group is recorded to have settled in North Korea which included Southern Manchuria in the ancient Kochosun time but not South Korea. North Korea is perceived to be closer to the cold northern nomads than South Korea. Quoting from "Korea and the Sacred White Mountain" by Alfred Edward John Cavendish, "the Northern Koreans are not the same race, I am certain, as the Southern, for they are not the same idle, good-for-nothing set, but, on the contrary, are as hard-working and industrious as possible. Besides this, from Kap-san to the northern border the natives have long features, with aquiline noses, and the almond-shaped eye and high cheek-bone so noticeable in Korea farther south, are almost entirely absent; as might be expected, the dialect differs also in a marked degree." ^[2] Aquiline nose means Roman nose; it refers to Southern Europe & the Middle East. Korea's folded double-eyelids have been described numerously by several 19th century references. Quoting from Corea by Arnold Henry Savage, "If you take the royal family of Corea, for instance, you will find that king and queen, and all the royal princes, especially on the queen's side (the Min family), are as white as any Caucasian, and that their eyes are hardly slanting at all, and in some cases are quite as straight as ours [Caucasians]. Members of some of the nobler families also might be taken for Europeans. Of course the middle classes are of the Mongolian type." ^[3] A particular famous Royal member is prince Wu Lee who made portraits & photos with clearly folded double-eyelids on both eyes. The term straight or open has been used many times for folded double-eyelids. Quoting from "The Earth and Its Inhabitants" by Elisee Reclus, "others group the Ainos with the Kamchadales, Koriaks, Aleutians, and some other northern peoples in a separate division of mankind, while they are by others regarded as a branch of the Eskimo or of the Polynesians, or even of the Western "Caucasic" stock. Certainly the ordinary Aino type differs greatly from the Japanese. The complexion is lighter, the forehead broader and higher, the cranial capacity vastly superior, the nose more prominent, the eyes larger, more open and perfectly straight, like those of Europeans." ^[4] Here is another example of the ethnologic usage of that word from the same book by Elisee Reclus, "the inhabitants of the Lu-chu Archipelago form a transition between the "Polynesian" type of Japan and the almost Malay features of the Formosans. The eyes are nearly straight, the complexion of a somewhat olive tint, the beard fuller than either of the Japanese or Chinese".^[5] Wikibreaking (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] References ^ Elisee Reclus's "The Earth and Its Inhabitants" on Khalkhas ^ Northern Korean & Southern Korean facial differences ^ Korean double-eyelids ^ the term straight for double-eyelids 1 ^ the term straight for double-eyelids 2 It is an existing covered topic (obviously because many books talk about it); it is properly referenced (used like 5 Google books on Ethnology); all I did was stating the quotes pretty much. This article should be posted back up. The myth part should also be reviewed again because it was not properly deleted (false claims were made in notability & references), but get the Korean eyes part straight first.Wikibreaking (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] I most recently deleted the article, but as a G4 ( a recreation of a previously deleted article). I don't have an opinion on whether the prior deletion was proper, simply that the latest version appears substantially similar to the deleted version. Original AfD--S Philbrick (Talk) 21:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Why is this still not processed? Can we have a discussion or something going on?Wikibreaking (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Comment This article was a content fork of a previously deleted article, see the deletion log for this article. This is also being discussed on yesterday's DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 January 17. Crow^Caw 21:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] I am saying 2 separate things here. 1. That previously deleted article on the myths was wrongfully deleted. 2. Irrelevant of that previously deleted article, whether this content was also mentioned in that previously deleted article or not, it should be irrelevant. For example, if an article on US presidency got deleted while including the mention of Obama, then should an article on Obama himself be also deleted just because it was mentioned in that deleted article? I see no logic in this. So, I am trying to set straight how this article (specifically on Korean eyes) is legitimate & shouldn't be deleted. Then, I am going to resubmit petition on the previously deleted article (I am separating that article into 2) because it shouldn't have been deleted in the first place.Wikibreaking (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] How come this is still not being processed? A later petition was processed, but this is still not touched.Wikibreaking (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] After this Korean eyes part is set straight, I am resubmitting the petition for the myth part (which was referenced in Korean language while the scientific facts were referenced by English via legitimate research institutes, which you administrators LIED to be illegitimate source) as well. For now, I am just splitting the article into 2 separate parts & getting separate approvals. This is an existing (covered) topic. That makes it notable. Quoting on notability, ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail" & "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability You administrators LIED that this was not notable. So, you either claimed that the topic is not verifiable (which is a lie as it was referenced) or that the topic was not covered (which is a lie as there are references on the topic). But, for now, focus on the Korean eyes part. I will resubmit the petition for the other half of the original article later. Also, there is a difference between being racial & being racist. If talking "being nice in language", that is not a requirement especially when the authors didn't care for such in the 19th century. Wikibreaking (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] TLDR. The definition of notability on Wiki is having been covered as an existing topic & being able to be verified. I provided links for each point. That's why I was saying that false claims were made on notability & the legitimacy of the sources. My article was wrongfully deleted. Appeal to Popularity is a logical fallacy. Whether many people wish the article to be deleted or not, that doesn't mean any Wiki rule is actually violated. Many people can be wrong while 1 person against them is right. Also, because of some annoying unqualified people claiming "a reference in Korean language doesn't count as a reference", I split the article into 2 separate parts to get approval for each part separately.Wikibreaking (talk) 05:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] TLDR. 1. Just because people believe it not to be notable doesn't make it so. Wiki defines notability as "having had a coverage" & "being able to be verified", which I proved by providing references. 2. Also, it is a different topic from Epicanthic fold. Peanut shouldn't be included in the topic walnut. 3. Participants believing or not believing the sources is irrelevant how the sources are legitimate, especially if the participants are not even qualified to judge what the source (such as a newspaper) is. 4. I split the article into 2 separate parts. The first part is on the myths of double-eyelids. The second part is on Korean eyes. I made it into a separate article, but it got deleted because it was mentioned in the previous article that got deleted. I am trying to get approval for each part separately. Put my article back on please.Wikibreaking (talk) 06:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] TLDR. Focus separately on the topic Korean eyes & on the topic myths about double-eyelids. As for the topic on Korean eyes, I quoted 5 Google books on Ethnology. So, this should be posted. Just get this done for now. Wikibreaking (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] TLDR. As for the myth part, the one I used as reference is a Korean newspaper Hankyore http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/science/kistiscience/95532.html which the English version is here. http://english.hani.co.kr/ You can clearly see that it's a newspaper website. As for the contents in the newspaper, I gave you a summary in the article. After introducing the myth (the general perception), the related scientific facts speaking against the myth are a legitimate related topics, which I included after introducing the myths. The sources were UCHealth, weather.com, livescience, all scientific channels quoting research institutes. A bunch of nobodies deciding the scientific channels & their quoted research institutes is just ridiculous. It's not up to them to decide. Wikibreaking (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] User:Wikibreaking is counselled to read WP:BLUDGEON and WP:TLDR, to stop submitting new "petitions" for substantially the same content with substantially the same text, and to understand that deletion reviews normally stay listed for seven days to ensure that anyone who wishes to contribute an opinion has the option to do so. Repeatedly posting increasingly strident and angry demands for your listing to be skipped ahead is going to backfire. You need to get people on your side as deletions will only be reversed if you gather a consensus in your favour, and getting angry at people will turn them against you. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] I don't like kissing ass; I don't like appeasing & manipulating to get what I want. If I wanted to manipulate, then I could have pulled it off very well. That is against my character. I do not want to do such & I still want what I am entitled to. I don't want favors; I want fair entitled services justly. Also, I feel incensed & rightfully so. I shouldn't have to refrain myself from it. Wikibreaking (talk) 09:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] You are not entitled to anything, just so you know. Stifle (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] If you are talking about legal issue, that can be sorted out in the civil court. (Infringement of privilege & entitlement unjustly.) If you are talking about the actual laws, that's for the judge & the written laws to decide. If you are talking about the Wiki rules, that's what I meant. When my article does not violate any rule, it should not be removed just by what you want. If you were saying that there is no Wiki rule against admin abuse & that you are allowed to such, that's a separate matter from my article being entitled to an entry by following Wiki rules. Not to mention being stupid. Wikibreaking (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse the close of the AFD because it reflected the consensus at a discussion where the deletion opinions were not obviously erroneous. The nomination here at DRV does come across as a request (demand, frankly) for a second AFD and that should be rejected. Are we effectively being asked to agree that Draft:East Asian myths about the evolution of folded eyelids can be moved to main space? To judge that I'd want to see the history to see how the versions differ and I'd like less noise so that I could think better. Thincat (talk) 10:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Could not have been closed any other way. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. From reading the guidelines, DRV was never intended to "relitigate" the XFD, just to determine if some sort of error was made by the closing admin. No such error was made here. Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 15:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Deletion Review is apparently being used as a form of therapy here.—S Marshall T/C 15:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse I would have closed it the same way assessing the rough consensus and policy based arguments. Verbosity does not have a direct correlation to validity in arguments. Mkdw ^talk 18:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] How was the deletion opinions not obviously erroneous? Be specific instead of stating only the conclusion which I obviously reject. You lied about not being notable, which I proved. I provided references instead of verbosity. You lied about the legitimacy of the references. I separated my article into 2 separate parts (if you don't understand what I mean, you didn't read that part, you are not qualified to endorse) to show how the other half has only English Google books as references, which should be uploaded. As for the other half on the myths, I also made the argument for it.Wikibreaking (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] I did not "lie" about anything. Lying and disagreement are two very different things in the English language. I strongly remind you to adhere to no personal attacks or you will be blocked. Mkdw ^talk 19:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] It fits the definition of lie completely when you claim a topic to be not notable (which Wiki defines as having a coverage & being able to be verified) when I provided links covering the topic. It is completely a lie when you claim a source to be not legitimate when it is a genuinely accepted type of source by MLA, APA or Wiki. All the sources I used at all were Google books (legit), newspapers (legit), scientific channels quoting research institutes (legit). What else did I use really? Also, even if there was 1 sentence problematic at all, what's up with deleting the entire article? You see the injustice in this?Wikibreaking (talk) I made the claim the topic is not notable? Wikibreaking perhaps you could point out where I made that claim. I said I would have closed the discussion the same way assessing the rough consensus. Perhaps you should be reminded that it's not the duty of the closer (which is what DRV is here to review) to determine notability. It's their responsibility to read the discussion and close the discussion based upon the determination of the other participants. You've mistaken this to mean the people endorsing the close are making a notability judgement when clearly in my case I never even remotely made a statement. You may want to adhere to your own advice about qualifications of reading the discussion. Mkdw ^talk 23:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolution of folded eyelids not meeting any of the points at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Purpose. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] The point is that "false claims were made against my article to delete the article". And you are just not admitting that you accepted false claims to close the article.Wikibreaking (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse the deletion. I was able to read the article and the factual claims were unsourced or were irrelevant to the article subject. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] As the nominator has been blocked indefinitely and there are no others supportive of undeletion, I think this can now be closed to avoid further drama. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

East Asian myths about the evolution of folded eyelids – snow endorse. I almost closed this yesterday per WP:SNOW and WP:DRVPURPOSE and almost imposed a block myself per WP:NOTHERE, and WP:NOTTHISSHITAGAIN, but cooled down and decided to wait. Glad to see some other janitor swept up this particular mess – -- RoySmith (talk) 13:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was originally deleted because of the title. Your excuse was about the title. Your excuse for deletion was that the title was wrong. That the content was about the myths while the title was about evolution. Hence, your nonsense doesn't apply when the title is set as myths. There is nothing to change in the article. It is properly referenced. How does your excuse for removal apply when the title is different?

When you deleted the previous "The evolution of folded eyelids", your excuse was that it didn't say anything about evolution specifically whilst the content was about the existing myths in the topic. So, I recreated using the different article title. I named the title "myths" & the content was about "myths". Why did you delete this time? If you are claiming it is not referenced *because you can't read Korean* despite me having already summarized the quoted newspaper, that's your problem. That doesn't make it not referenced. If you are claiming that a reference in foreign language can't be used, I would like to see that rule as I've seen plenty of foreign references. It's a specifically existing topic of significant facts (as in being notable).

The article specifically mentioned "here are existing claims". That's very concrete for going over the "existing claims & myths". How much more concrete can you get for introducing existing myths than "here are the myths". Also, it was properly referenced. Also, the relevant scientific facts & historical records were very related to the myths because they were the opposite.

Wikibreaking (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from AfD participant: The original deletion discussion was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolution of folded eyelids. The article was subsequently re-created twice at this title, and has now been moved to Draft:East Asian myths about the evolution of folded eyelids. Please ping me with questions, if any, otherwise I will let the DRV continue without further input so fresh eyes can evaluate. Crow^Caw 22:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How come this is still not touched? This isn't complicated. Some administrators made false claims & closed this article. We just have to go over their specific claims & how they don't apply if having a different title. Referenced notable facts are being banned right now.

Wikibreaking (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is still not touched, so I am following up. Basically, I introduced "here are the existing myths in this topic of evolution." Then, I linked the related relevant scientific & ethnological facts in East Asia. Then, the article was deleted because "virtually nothing in this article is validly sourced" (which is false claim because I linked research institutes & newspapers) & "you are wrong in considering that "worthy of interest" means "notable"." (which is false because the article was notable by being an existing topic of significant facts) & "The topic of how folded eyelids evolved could be interesting, but this article sheds no light on the subject. It states right up front that there is no scientific information on the subject" (which is irrelevant as I was introducing myths instead of talking about the actual evolution). So, 2 of them are false claims, and the last one doesn't apply if the title is not on the evolution but on the myths. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Evolution_of_folded_eyelids

Wikibreaking (talk) 02:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While the ban on the myths is reviewed, as for the later part on Korean eyes, I made a separate article for that part only. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_eyes Now, just have to finish this talk on the first part (the myths being introduced). Are you claiming that the myths don't exist? I provided a newspaper reference introducing the myths. Are you claiming that the reference is fake? That makes you a liar & you are not even qualified if you can't verify the newspaper article. Or are you claiming that the related scientific facts quoted from the research institutes shouldn't be included? They are related facts speaking against the myths; they should be included; they are within the topic & they are properly referenced.

Wikibreaking (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since notability is being used as an excuse, let's specifically quote the rule. Quoting on notability, ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail" & "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability

Wikibreaking (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolution of folded eyelids. Reasonably well-attended, weight of both policy and numbers overwhelmingly on the "delete" side. Thparkth (talk) 02:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Be very specific in your claims. Which part is wrong why? Wikibreaking (talk) 02:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The arguments for deletion were, in fact, unusually well-reasoned and definitely based on policy (and the participants explained those policies in some detail as well.) This is not a new deletion discussion for the article, it is an evaluation of whether the previous discussion followed Wikipedia policy, which it did. There was only one possible way to close the discussion: as "delete". --bonadea contributions talk 09:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Endorse~~. Closure was in line with the consensus. Will User:Wikibreaking please place his/her signature on the same line rather than a new line, as this is breaking formatting. Will Wikibreaking also note that the question is on whether the administrator has followed deletion process properly. Deletion review is not a venue to advance new arguments (or repeat old ones) about the article nor to assert that the consensus was wrong. Stifle (talk) 12:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Amending my comment to speedy close per WP:DRVPURPOSE items 5 and 8 under "deletion review should not be used". Stifle (talk) 09:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I feel incensed. My article was legitimately referenced, it talked about notable topics that are existing covered topics, the arguments for deletion were lies. But since you keep on insisting your bullshits anyway, forget the myth part but focus on the Korean eyes part. I had created a new article on Korean eyes without the myth part, but it got deleted because I had talked about Korean eyes while talking about the myths. How is this fair? You know what? I am going to create a new petition for this.Wikibreaking (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I created a separate petition for the Korean eyes part. After setting that straight, I am going to resubmit this petition again because you administrators made false claims (be very specific in logic instead of lying) in notability (it's an existing covered topic) & the legitimacy (all those sources are legitimate) of references.Wikibreaking (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are not processing this nowhere near properly at all. For now, I am splitting the content (about the myths on eyelids) into 2 separate parts. I am uploading an article specifically on Korean eyes first. That new article is being deleted because it was a part of this article. Look into this please. If you are not doing anything by tomorrow, I am resubmitting the petition since you are not looking at this post or something.Wikibreaking (talk) 01:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I originally had created an article on myths on eyelids. It got deleted. I feel incensed. My article was legitimately referenced, it talked about notable topics that are existing covered topics, the arguments for deletion were lies. But since you keep on insisting your bullshits anyway, forget the myth part but focus on the Korean eyes part. I had created a new article on Korean eyes without the myth part, but it got deleted because I had talked about Korean eyes while talking about the myths (which got deleted). How is this fair? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_eyes

Wikibreaking (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the content.

Wikibreaking (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a claim that the term Mongoloid refers to only Mongolian, Eskimo Siberian, etc. (Such that "Chinese isn't Mongoloid".) Unlike such claim, the definition differs. The term refers to the yellow people in general. Also, Uralic, Turkic, Altaic blood is little in Mongolian. That blood (Y-haplogroup N) is genetically different from Eskimo Siberian (Y-haplogroup C). Quoting from "The Earth and Its Inhabitants" by Elisee Reclus, "The national type seems to have been best preserved amongst the Khalkhas, who also claim a certain superiority over the other branches on the ground that amongst them are the families of the Taitsi, descendants of Jenghiz Khan. Yet the Khalkha least resembles the typical Mongol type, as described by most ethnologists. He is rather brown than yellow, with open eyes, not inclined obliquely, like those of the Chinese or Ostiaks." ^[1] One of the Mongoloid traits is small mono-eyelids like Chinese, Ostiaks, Eskimo Siberians, but Khalkhas differ from such types.

Korea historically has been perceived as the mixture of the East Asian aboriginals & Altaic nomads (like Khalkhas) from Central Asia. This nomadic group is recorded to have settled in North Korea which included Southern Manchuria in the ancient Kochosun time but not South Korea. North Korea is perceived to be closer to the cold northern nomads than South Korea. Quoting from "Korea and the Sacred White Mountain" by Alfred Edward John Cavendish, "the Northern Koreans are not the same race, I am certain, as the Southern, for they are not the same idle, good-for-nothing set, but, on the contrary, are as hard-working and industrious as possible. Besides this, from Kap-san to the northern border the natives have long features, with aquiline noses, and the almond-shaped eye and high cheek-bone so noticeable in Korea farther south, are almost entirely absent; as might be expected, the dialect differs also in a marked degree." ^[2] Aquiline nose means Roman nose; it refers to Southern Europe & the Middle East.

Korea's folded double-eyelids have been described numerously by several 19th century references. Quoting from Corea by Arnold Henry Savage, "If you take the royal family of Corea, for instance, you will find that king and queen, and all the royal princes, especially on the queen's side (the Min family), are as white as any Caucasian, and that their eyes are hardly slanting at all, and in some cases are quite as straight as ours [Caucasians]. Members of some of the nobler families also might be taken for Europeans. Of course the middle classes are of the Mongolian type." ^[3] A particular famous Royal member is prince Wu Lee who made portraits & photos with clearly folded double-eyelids on both eyes.

The term straight or open has been used many times for folded double-eyelids. Quoting from "The Earth and Its Inhabitants" by Elisee Reclus, "others group the Ainos with the Kamchadales, Koriaks, Aleutians, and some other northern peoples in a separate division of mankind, while they are by others regarded as a branch of the Eskimo or of the Polynesians, or even of the Western "Caucasic" stock. Certainly the ordinary Aino type differs greatly from the Japanese. The complexion is lighter, the forehead broader and higher, the cranial capacity vastly superior, the nose more prominent, the eyes larger, more open and perfectly straight, like those of Europeans." ^[4]

Here is another example of the ethnologic usage of that word from the same book by Elisee Reclus, "the inhabitants of the Lu-chu Archipelago form a transition between the "Polynesian" type of Japan and the almost Malay features of the Formosans. The eyes are nearly straight, the complexion of a somewhat olive tint, the beard fuller than either of the Japanese or Chinese".^[5]

Wikibreaking (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

It is an existing covered topic (obviously because many books talk about it); it is properly referenced (used like 5 Google books on Ethnology); all I did was stating the quotes pretty much. This article should be posted back up. The myth part should also be reviewed again because it was not properly deleted (false claims were made in notability & references), but get the Korean eyes part straight first.Wikibreaking (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I most recently deleted the article, but as a G4 ( a recreation of a previously deleted article). I don't have an opinion on whether the prior deletion was proper, simply that the latest version appears substantially similar to the deleted version.

Original AfD--S Philbrick (Talk) 21:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this still not processed? Can we have a discussion or something going on?Wikibreaking (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was a content fork of a previously deleted article, see the deletion log for this article. This is also being discussed on yesterday's DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 January 17. Crow^Caw 21:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying 2 separate things here. 1. That previously deleted article on the myths was wrongfully deleted. 2. Irrelevant of that previously deleted article, whether this content was *also* mentioned in that previously deleted article or not, it should be irrelevant. For example, if an article on US presidency got deleted while including the mention of Obama, then should an article on Obama himself be also deleted just because it was mentioned in that deleted article? I see no logic in this. So, I am trying to set straight how this article (specifically on Korean eyes) is legitimate & shouldn't be deleted. Then, I am going to resubmit petition on the previously deleted article (I am separating that article into 2) because it shouldn't have been deleted in the first place.Wikibreaking (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How come this is still not being processed? A later petition was processed, but this is still not touched.Wikibreaking (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After this Korean eyes part is set straight, I am resubmitting the petition for the myth part (which was referenced in Korean language while the scientific facts were referenced by English via legitimate research institutes, which you administrators LIED to be illegitimate source) as well. For now, I am just splitting the article into 2 separate parts & getting separate approvals. This is an existing (covered) topic. That makes it notable. Quoting on notability, ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail" & "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability You administrators LIED that this was not notable. So, you either claimed that the topic is not verifiable (which is a lie as it was referenced) or that the topic was not covered (which is a lie as there are references on the topic).

But, for now, focus on the Korean eyes part. I will resubmit the petition for the other half of the original article later. Also, there is a difference between being racial & being racist. If talking "being nice in language", that is not a requirement especially when the authors didn't care for such in the 19th century. Wikibreaking (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TLDR. The definition of notability on Wiki is having been covered as an existing topic & being able to be verified. I provided links for each point. That's why I was saying that false claims were made on notability & the legitimacy of the sources. My article was wrongfully deleted. Appeal to Popularity is a logical fallacy. Whether many people wish the article to be deleted or not, that doesn't mean any Wiki rule is actually violated. Many people can be wrong while 1 person against them is right. Also, because of some annoying unqualified people claiming "a reference in Korean language doesn't count as a reference", I split the article into 2 separate parts to get approval for each part separately.Wikibreaking (talk) 05:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TLDR. 1. Just because people believe it not to be notable doesn't make it so. Wiki defines notability as "having had a coverage" & "being able to be verified", which I proved by providing references. 2. Also, it is a different topic from Epicanthic fold. Peanut shouldn't be included in the topic walnut. 3. Participants believing or not believing the sources is irrelevant how the sources are legitimate, especially if the participants are not even qualified to judge what the source (such as a newspaper) is. 4. I split the article into 2 separate parts. The first part is on the myths of double-eyelids. The second part is on Korean eyes. I made it into a separate article, but it got deleted because it was mentioned in the previous article that got deleted. I am trying to get approval for each part separately. Put my article back on please.Wikibreaking (talk) 06:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TLDR. Focus separately on the topic Korean eyes & on the topic myths about double-eyelids. As for the topic on Korean eyes, I quoted 5 Google books on Ethnology. So, this should be posted. Just get this done for now. Wikibreaking (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TLDR. As for the myth part, the one I used as reference is a Korean newspaper Hankyore http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/science/kistiscience/95532.html which the English version is here. http://english.hani.co.kr/ You can clearly see that it's a newspaper website. As for the contents in the newspaper, I gave you a summary in the article. After introducing the myth (the general perception), the related scientific facts speaking against the myth are a legitimate related topics, which I included after introducing the myths. The sources were UCHealth, weather.com, livescience, all scientific channels quoting research institutes. A bunch of nobodies deciding the scientific channels & their quoted research institutes is just ridiculous. It's not up to them to decide. Wikibreaking (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wikibreaking is counselled to read WP:BLUDGEON and WP:TLDR, to stop submitting new "petitions" for substantially the same content with substantially the same text, and to understand that deletion reviews normally stay listed for seven days to ensure that anyone who wishes to contribute an opinion has the option to do so. Repeatedly posting increasingly strident and angry demands for your listing to be skipped ahead is going to backfire. You need to get people on your side as deletions will only be reversed if you gather a consensus in your favour, and getting angry at people will turn them against you. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like kissing ass; I don't like appeasing & manipulating to get what I want. If I wanted to manipulate, then I could have pulled it off very well. That is against my character. I do not want to do such & I still want what I am entitled to. I don't want favors; I want fair entitled services justly. Also, I feel incensed & rightfully so. I shouldn't have to refrain myself from it. Wikibreaking (talk) 09:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are not entitled to anything, just so you know. Stifle (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are talking about legal issue, that can be sorted out in the civil court. (Infringement of privilege & entitlement unjustly.) If you are talking about the actual laws, that's for the judge & the written laws to decide. If you are talking about the Wiki rules, that's what I meant. When my article does not violate any rule, it should not be removed just by what you want. If you were saying that there is no Wiki rule against admin abuse & that you are allowed to such, that's a separate matter from my article being entitled to an entry by following Wiki rules. Not to mention being stupid. Wikibreaking (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the close of the AFD because it reflected the consensus at a discussion where the deletion opinions were not obviously erroneous. The nomination here at DRV does come across as a request (demand, frankly) for a second AFD and that should be rejected. Are we effectively being asked to agree that Draft:East Asian myths about the evolution of folded eyelids can be moved to main space? To judge that I'd want to see the history to see how the versions differ and I'd like less noise so that I could think better. Thincat (talk) 10:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Could not have been closed any other way. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. From reading the guidelines, DRV was never intended to "relitigate" the XFD, just to determine if some sort of error was made by the closing admin. No such error was made here. Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 15:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Deletion Review is apparently being used as a form of therapy here.—S Marshall T/C 15:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I would have closed it the same way assessing the rough consensus and policy based arguments. Verbosity does not have a direct correlation to validity in arguments. Mkdw ^talk 18:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How was the deletion opinions not obviously erroneous? Be specific instead of stating only the conclusion which I obviously reject. You lied about not being notable, which I proved. I provided references instead of verbosity. You lied about the legitimacy of the references. I separated my article into 2 separate parts (if you don't understand what I mean, you didn't read that part, you are not qualified to endorse) to show how the other half has only English Google books as references, which should be uploaded. As for the other half on the myths, I also made the argument for it.Wikibreaking (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not "lie" about anything. Lying and disagreement are two very different things in the English language. I strongly remind you to adhere to no personal attacks or you will be blocked. Mkdw ^talk 19:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It fits the definition of lie completely when you claim a topic to be not notable (which Wiki defines as having a coverage & being able to be verified) when I provided links covering the topic. It is completely a lie when you claim a source to be not legitimate when it is a genuinely accepted type of source by MLA, APA or Wiki. All the sources I used at all were Google books (legit), newspapers (legit), scientific channels quoting research institutes (legit). What else did I use really? Also, even if there was 1 sentence problematic at all, what's up with deleting the entire article? You see the injustice in this?Wikibreaking (talk)

I made the claim the topic is not notable? Wikibreaking perhaps you could point out where I made that claim. I said I would have closed the discussion the same way assessing the rough consensus. Perhaps you should be reminded that it's not the duty of the closer (which is what DRV is here to review) to determine notability. It's their responsibility to read the discussion and close the discussion based upon the determination of the other participants. You've mistaken this to mean the people endorsing the close are making a notability judgement when clearly in my case I never even remotely made a statement. You may want to adhere to your own advice about qualifications of reading the discussion. Mkdw ^talk 23:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolution of folded eyelids not meeting any of the points at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Purpose. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that "false claims were made against my article to delete the article". And you are just not admitting that you accepted false claims to close the article.Wikibreaking (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the deletion. I was able to read the article and the factual claims were unsourced or were irrelevant to the article subject. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator has been blocked indefinitely and there are no others supportive of undeletion, I think this can now be closed to avoid further drama. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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