Alleged harm done by vaccine critics' successes (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am looking for an overturn and relisting of JzG's closure of the aforementioned redirect. Geolodus and I expressed several concerns about the closure at User talk:JzG. The discussion was only open for a little over an hour, which is not enough time for interested parties to participate in the discussion, nor was it an obvious result per WP:SNOW at that time. JzG's response to my query was also concerning, because it shows that his closure was not a reading of consensus, but was based on his personal opinions on the redirect. Any further attempt at discussion was shot down as a "waste of time", so here we are. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: I'm surprised to see JzG participate in RfDs and AfDs as I hadn't seen his name as a closing administrator, but he, I, and other admins and editors are currently engaged in multiple RfCs right now over at WP:BLPN and Talk:Sharyl Attkisson, so question for S Marshall or WilyD, can we overturn a closure per WP:INVOLVED—that is, wouldn't this kind of be a fuzzy/grey area of what constitutes involvement?--Doug Mehus T·C 17:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• If he was involved, then yes, that could potentially be grounds for a summary overturn. Not only must our decisions be right, they must be seen to be right.—S Marshall T/C 17:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall Now that administrator Tavix has undeleted, temporarily, this redirect, we can see that Harm done by anti-vaccinationists successes was moved to Anti-vaccinationists/Harm done by successes and, at some point, this redirect became a shortcut redirect; however, I note none of those two longer redirects were summarily deleted (because they're not as neutral)? --Doug Mehus T·C 18:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm uninvolved, I have never seen that page before, so that's OK. But I do love the way that people with bees in their bonnets can waste prodigious amounts of time arguing over the obvious - or even, in some cases, stubbornly insisting on the retention of utterly useless content. Guy (help!) 17:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Given it was open for less than two hours, and no speedy deletion criterion was invoked (nor do any appear to apply), I think it's easy to argue for a re-open. WilyD 17:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• That said, I suspect what S Marshall is getting at is right, and this is unlikely to survive an MfD. Normally, that'd make me reluctant to bother, unless someone was really keen to argue for it, but the closing admin's apparent inability to maintain a veneer of impartiality isn't great for creating a collegial environment. WilyD 17:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and Re-open on the grounds that the debate was short-circuited. As I understand it from Trialpears, one !vote does not constitute the snow clause. The RfD was not closed as "speedy delete" and no rationale was even given as to why this debate was not allowed to run the full seven days. --Doug Mehus T·C 17:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• That's a remarkably unlikely search term, in my view. Whyever would we need a redirect from that?—S Marshall T/C 17:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall, I agree it's a bit long and the punctuation mark following critics doesn't help, but still, I see no reason to short-circuit the debate. Tavix' rationale for overturning is sound and the discussion at User talk:JzG and elsewhere is somewhat concerning. So, maybe, call it a "protest overturn." Doug Mehus T·C 17:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being pedantic, but ' is an apostrophe, not a punctuation mark. Thus, "vaccine critics' successes" means "the successes of vaccine critics" and is perfectly correct. Geolodus (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geolodus No worries. For clarity, I wasn't arguing it wasn't a legitimate use of the apostrophe, but was just trying to say that as a potential search term someone might enter for the purposes of the redirect's potential legitimacy, often people ignore punctuation marks (including apostrophes) when searching as Google is often agnostic to them. That's all I was meaning, but yes, for article titling purposes, it's definitely legitimate to have an apostrophe there—including if this redirect were to result in "keep." When this DRV is re-opened, I will be arguing for "temporary keep" until an administrator (preferably two) have completed and/or corrected the history merge, as I think that seems prudent given the administrative SNAFU that occurred. --Doug Mehus T·C 18:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Most of that wasn't clear from what you originally wrote. Geolodus (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall See below. It's left over from cleaning up a very small and unloved POV fork. It's never been used as a redirect for the same reason it was never used as an article. Guy (help!) 17:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Were we keeping the redirect to preserve attribution from an old merge, or something? I'm desperately casting around to see if I can detect the faintest whiff of the slightest hint of a reason why we would resurrect this redirect.—S Marshall T/C 17:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I've temporarily undeleted the page in question so you can see the history. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall, I looked up the old page JzG mentioned, Anti-vaccinationists/Harm done by successes, which, interestingly, is still a redirect and remains yet it is less neutrally worded than this longer, more neutral redirect, so that's a bit troubling to me.--Doug Mehus T·C 17:59, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall Ah, that makes sense then, so that's why we kept those other two long redirects, for attribution. Good eye! We need you at RfD as no one ever brings up attribution for keeping redirects! --Doug Mehus T·C 18:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly haven't been at RfD long enough... -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch by both of you to find the other redirects and potential WP:MAD issue. These are a couple more examples of why RfD discussions should be open long enough for others to review the situation in question. By finding the other similar redirects, they can be added to the discussion and be deleted at the same time should that be the consensus. By finding the potential WP:MAD issue, the RfD discussion can also be used to discuss which option (if any) from Wikipedia:Merge and delete#What can 'merge and delete' look like? we want to use. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tavix Assuming this deletion review is overturned, as seems likely, I think we have a strong case now for keeping all of these redirects, unless there's a way to manually merge the revision history into a single page? --Doug Mehus T·C 18:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please review Wikipedia:Merge and delete#What can 'merge and delete' look like? and WP:HISTMERGE. Also, please stop thanking me every time I reply, it's getting annoying. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tavix Okay, thanks. I'd wondered about history merges, but hadn't looked into it yet. Sorry about the "thanks," but I generally think people like getting them like they like pats on the back. One per discussion might be enough, though. Know that if I don't 'thank' you, I thank you. (Disclosure: I'm Canadian after all.) --Doug Mehus T·C 18:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Titanic waste of time. As I explained on my Talk page, the deleted history establishes unambiguously that it started as a short POV fork called "Anti-vaccinationists/Harm done by successes", was moved to "Harm done by anti-vaccinationists successes", moved again to "Alleged harm done by vaccine critics' successes", and converted to a redirect to anti-vaccinationist in 2006. I'm unable to find any evidence it was ever used, and it's unlikely ever to be used because we now have a completely different hierarchy of articles on this topic area. Basically it's left over from a POV fork that never got beyond a stub. You've already expended more time here than it was worth. At its peak it was less than 4000 characters including templates, and most of it was unsourced opinion or blatant OR. Resurrecting the discussion is a fabulous waste of time. More effort has already been expended by the OP than this page has ever justified in its entire life here. It was never used, it will never be used, it is a waste of space. Guy (help!) 17:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JzG I agree with you that this redirect is an implausible redirect, but why not include a closing rationale and call it a "speedy delete" on that basis? This likely would've saved the need for deletion review. That said, I do see plausibility for a more concise redirect in the future. Doug Mehus T·C 17:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. I used the closest thing on the AfD closer script to implement the obvious result and save someone some time. How stupid of me to want to reduce wasted time and not realise that wasting time is always justified if you do the obvious thing without bringing the correct shrubbery. Do not ping me again in this discussion, please, because it has already wasted more of my life than it is worth. Guy (help!) 17:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you ample opportunity to do the right thing and reopen the discussion once your 'stupid' action was pointed out. All you had to do was say "okay" and you wouldn't have been bothered any more and this time would have been saved. I'm not sure how you don't realize that given how concerned you are about "wasting time". -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have a personal anecdote to share, slightly off-topic but still related, I recently closed as "keep" a long outstanding discussion at Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Painting, but re-opened it upon request from BrownHairedGirl, who had been in the midst of composing a long, detailed evidence of why, in her view, the portal constituted unmaintained "portal spam" (to use her words). Sure, my close may have survived deletion review, but it may not and would've been a procedural diversion to re-opening the debate—just as this is now. So, unfortunately, what could've been closed as deleted in 7 days will now take at least twice that time! --Doug Mehus T·C 18:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist. As a redirect, it's pointless and WP:POV, but it's been around for 13 years, so clearly not doing any immediate harm. Let the RfD continue to its inevitable conclusion. All of the above about why this is a waste of time is true, but none of that fits any of the WP:CSD, so just let the discussion run its course. The problem with most attempts to shortcut process as a time-saving measure is that they end up at DRV which is a net increase in time-wasting. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith Completely agree. Closing this early, on the same day on which it was initiated, has ended up causing more time to be spent. Do we have a speedy overturn so we don't have to spend 7 days on this? Doug Mehus T·C 17:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly be in favor of that, even more so now after reading JzG's subsequent comments. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, things are only speedily overturnt if the closing admin agrees to it. WilyD 18:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted, stupendous waste of time. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Bishonen | talk 18:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]

• @Bishonen: I don't think that's a fair assessment given S Marshall's findings. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, given that this debate does smack a bit of a wintry flurry, one option is to whack a list of contributors onto the target article talk page and then snow endorse?—S Marshall T/C 18:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall But, procedurally, there an overturn decision at deletion review might give the closing administrator pause for thought for future decisions; hence why I favoured a speedy overturn decision, per WP:IAR, and let this debate be had—with links to this discussion—at RfD where it should've been had. --Doug Mehus T·C 18:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and trout the deleting admin. A speedy deletion done without a justification, that doesn't meet any speedy deletion criterion and with multiple good faith objections to the speedy deletion from uninvolved editors? Even without considering the merits of the objections you don't get much clearer examples of incorrect speedy deletions than that. Thryduulf (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• This !vote probably won't surprise anyone, but overturn and reopen for the reasons I have given at JzG's user talk. Geolodus (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Re-open - at least, appears to be needed for copyright reasons. And while I'm not usually one to suggest Caesar's wife needs to be above suspicion, she really needs to not tweet that she deleting redirects as a favour to the Ukrainian Cabal to get them to announce they've launched an investigation into Wakedrew Anfield's Casino funding. WilyD 20:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• What? Geolodus (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Eh? As S Marshall notes, there's a possible copyright problem here, so there needs to be a discussion. And being a functioning encyclopaedia building community means we can't endorse admins being openly contemptuous of both the community and the policies (though the latter of course flows from the former). WilyD 20:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Props to WilyD for his edit summary related to his above !vote, which was both concise and full of dry humour, "overturn - possibly for copyright, possibly just because we need to maintain at least the pretense admins are serving the encyclopaedia and community."Doug Mehus T·C 21:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious overturn per Thryduulf. I love NOTBURO as much as the next guy, but if you're going to be BOLD, you need to be prepared for some give and take. There are probably redirects that could've had such a close and no one would complain. But if you get this sort of pushback, you can't be too proud to take a step back. One editor seeing something as a waste of time is not at all a good reason for an XfD close in the first 24 hours! Just let it run its course. Much sillier redirects have been kept, though I suspect this one will not be. --BDD (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Re-open per both procedural error and additional information revealed in this discussion. The discussion wasn't listed for the usual 7 days and there were no reason to close it early since none of the CSD criteria or the WP:SNOW clause apply. The copyright issues uncovered are also grounds to re-open it- ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and re-open to allow a full 7-day discussion. As described above, this was not a case of WP:SNOW, and were there other extenuating circumstances allowing for such quick deletion (no applicable CSDs nor anything else). Furthermore, the fact that this is an ((R with history)) should make it anything but a quick closure (notwithstanding any CSDs), as the page's (former) contents and necessary attribution go beyond what is discussed in many RfDs. There's plenty to discuss, so there should be time for interested users to do so at RfD. ComplexRational (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ComplexRational Agree completely. If anything, this deletion review thread, I think, makes the case for a temporary keep at the eventual re-opened RfD thread, at least until we can do a proper history merge for all the redirects (at least three, by my rough count), have an administrator review the prior diffs—hiding visibility for any copyvios, and transferring over any diffs which contributed to the current Vaccine hesitancy article for attribution purposes (the articles were created when Wikimedia was still using the GFDL license instead of the current CC-BY-SA license, it looks like). We'll definitely need one or more administrators to oversee that a proper history merge has been done before re-deleting these redirects. In fact, I'd actually even go far as to recommend not re-nominating this redirect post-close of this deletion review, and would nominate Tavix to be the new RfD nominator once the history merges have been completed. Doug Mehus T·C 00:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment JzG is still not backing down. Before archiving the thread on his talk page, he just rebutted: the proper action is to delete the shitty useless thing, which I did. Now goodbye. This doesn't instill much confidence that he did the right thing—rather he's digging an even bigger hole. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It also raises questions about his willingness to abide by the WP:ADMINACCT policy. Thryduulf (talk) 01:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gentlemen, DRV is a venue about content rather than conduct. We don't throw brickbats at closers. In extreme circumstances we've been known to administer a gentle piscine caress, but that's as far as it goes. I do think it's important that closers don't find DRV a hostile place. If you'd like to discuss a user's trustworthiness then there are places you can do that.—S Marshall T/C 01:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - as who is going to type all of this in? I would support renaming this to something more plausible such as Alleged harm done by vaccines or Vaccine debate. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledgekid87, thanks for sharing your thoughts, but, unfortunately, that's not the debate we're having as the closing RfD administrator prematurely short-circuited the debate at RfD. So, now we have to have a 7 day debate on whether to re-open or overturn the RfD close on both procedural and additional grounds. At that point, this debate, and the additional evidence it provides, would then go back to RfD where we can debate renaming, deletion, and the like. I agree with you it should be deleted, but not without correcting the history merge so attribution can be preserved at Vaccine hesitancy. At that point, the redirects (we've uncovered several) could then be summarily deleted, as I think there'd be a substantial consensus to doing so. But not before this procedural diversion is out of the way. Doug Mehus T·C 02:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that Alleged harm done by vaccines is the opposite of what the deleted redirect expressed. --BDD (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BDD Ah, good point. I missed that. Looks like the pro-vaccine/anti-vaccine camps were setting up dueling redirects to the same article at some point, perhaps? I agree with the point you made above that sillier redirects have been kept than these, though I see no point in keeping them beyond, say, a 3-6 month temporary timeframe to correct an incorrectly done history merge. Overlooked a bit in the procedural short-circuiting of the RfD by JzG was his personal biases in the vaccine debate as a staunch opponent of the anti-vaccination debate and his currently involvement in an active RfC he'd initiated at Talk:Sharyl Attkisson. I find that just as troubling and, potentially, an abuse of administrative privileges. --Doug Mehus T·C 15:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The redirect was stupid, but the close without a speedy rationale and without a snowball close was disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Overturn because this really was a procedurally flawed close. Yuck. The closer was in good faith trying to get rid of something stupid, but just made it worse. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist purely for optics reasons - I agree with the result and the waste of time justifications, but ultimately S Marshall's reasoning is most persuasive to me. SportingFlyer T·C 06:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong overturn I have no view on whether the redirect should or should not eventually be kept. Deletion discussions are supposed to run for a minimum time, except in specific limited circumstances, which did not apply here. This close and the refusal to reopen amount to a supervote. Discussions are supposed to run for a while so that a more representative selection of editors than the most frequent regulars have a chance to weigh in on the discussion. No great time or resources are wasted by letting a discussion stay open. No one is required to spend time monitoring every edit to it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 10:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious overturn. Closure within an hour and a half of opening (with discussions generally required to be open for at least seven days), with neither SNOW nor CSD applicable, appearance of involvement. – Uanfala (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn speedy based solely on the lack of speedy/snow justification. There may be other reasons to overturn, but that's all I need, so I didn't look closely at the copyright arguments or involved argument (which seems weak?) Hobit (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing a contentious discussion early to avoid wasting time never, ever, ever works; and while it may not have been obvious this would be contentious when it was deleted, it sure is now. The best way to stop wasting everyone's time, as the deleting admin claims he desires, is for him to reverse himself so we can close this discussion and go delete the redirect after its seven days of fame at RFD (or archive it in talkspace or whatever if we really need its history for attribution). —Cryptic 02:21, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This deletion review it seems to me, ironically, is a functional example of the WP:SNOW clause. I initially favoured speedy overturn so we could send this back to RfD swiftly, but am now favouring letting this run for 7 days for added emphasis to the deleting administrator of exactly why we don't short-circuit the process. Or, at the very least, as BDD said above, if one is going to be bold, if challenged, be prepared to re-open the discussion so as to avoid these procedural diversions. Doug Mehus T·C 02:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • DRVs usually don't get closed early unless everyone - closer/deleter, nominator, commenters - is all in agreement, perhaps not as to whether a page should ultimately remain deleted, but at least whether to remand discussion elsewhere. That's not to chastise the deleting admin - there's other places for that, and DRV is an explicitly drama-free zone - it's because the buck stops here. Something only gets to DRV when the process has already failed, and DRVs themselves just about never get overturned, or reconsidered in the short term, or such; so it's important that we get things done here right. —Cryptic 02:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist Lightburst (talk) 02:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Lightburst, for clarity, you mean overturn and relist as some others !voting in the same way, and not that this DRV should be relisted, correct? --Doug Mehus T·C 15:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, my opinion is it was closed before discussion could take place. We do things by consensus here unless there is an overriding concern like BLP or the like. Lightburst (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lightburst Thanks, that's what I thought you meant, but since you just said relist without any rationale beside it, I thought it would be useful to clarify what you meant on the record for the closing admin determining consensus. (I will be eager to read the closer's rationale when this closes, and whether a trout will be served!) Doug Mehus T·C 16:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like it undeleted, and I'd like people making comments on it to read the history of changes to it. The procedure looks flawed to me - I'm one person with a clear interest, and I'm not on here every day, I suspect neither are several other relevant editors. In the few comments prior to the precipitate delete is a grumble about the title, and another about it being an unlikely search term. The title was changed from a marginally more sensible one to the current one, by an anti-vaccinationist editor, and I would agree, the effect is to make it less easy for a search engine to point readers at what they are looking for. A reasonable response to that, I submit, is to change the title. Why do anything else? The simple term "anti-vaccinationist(s)" is easily understood, searchable, and not awkward. They've existed a bit longer than vaccination (as anti-inoculators) and currently try to hide as "sceptics" or talk about "doubt". The topic is current - again - with significant failures of public health, and deaths, from incomplete immunisation. There is evidence that the most potent factor in this is failure to provide convenient facilities and services, and that the strange loose coalition of weird people who want it have a lot less success than they think, but I don't doubt they reduce effect and cost and alter lives. Lets by all means move these articles and sub-articles around, but I suggest that with a well-organised structure to immunisation articles, and with a significant number of people who have knowledge and interest in the field, it is a really stupid idea to rapidly delete them without involving relevant editors in the discussion. Again, my impression of Wiki is that when someone notices a fault, they are entirely at liberty to take a step in improving it, in their own words, or by asking an editor in the relevant group to look at it. Lastly, there have been sufficient editors with bees in their bonnets messing up immunisation articles that it is sensible to look at the record of any administrator who makes a precipitate decision on one - please. Midgley (talk) 00:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn WP:RFD states that "Nominations should remain open, per policy, about a week before they are closed" and so this was a violation of policy. Andrew D. (talk) 10:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted although it's clear consensus is moving against that. I think we've lost our marbles. There's no earthly reason to keep this.--WaltCip (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WaltCip, no, actually, we hadn't "lost our marbles," as you put it. Did you read what Tavix, Thryduulf, ComplexRational, and S Marshall wrote above? The content of the deleted redirect was part of a merger, without the proper attribution being consolidated on a talkpage. That needed to happen before the redirect was deleted. When the RfD is re-opened post-close of this procedural diversion, I will be arguing temporary keep to have that history merge take place before we delete it. Speaking of which, on the matter of trouting the deleting admin, Thryduulf, when this closes, would you like to do the honours? I have no doubt you will craft a well written message that is both serious and humourous to go along with the trouting. --Doug Mehus T·C 16:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmehus: A trout would not be appropriate now. Thryduulf (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I greatly apologize, as I had no idea my nominating of this redirect at RFD would cause such a debate. I was quite surprised to find it had been deleted in such a short manner, as I too had thought it was a 7 day minimum from having read the policies on nominating pages or redirects for deletion. I feel bad for having started a firestorm of a debate here. Aspenkiddo (talk) 17:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aspenkiddo: Rather, we should be thanking you for bringing this redirect to our attention! There is no need to apologize, the blame for the situation we find ourselves in rests entirely on JzG's shoulders. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aspenkiddo: I concur with that Tavix said entirely. Thank you for bringing this to the community's attention. If anything, this discussion at DRV may shorten the discussion needed when the RfD is re-opened (likely tomorrow or Thursday)—despite it snowing in here, it is probably not best to short-circuit this debate when the debate is about the previous discussion being short-circuited. Doug Mehus T·C 20:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, just to reiterate, everything you did here was appropriate and proper. WilyD 11:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ernesto Alciati (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

During this debate, the keep side argued that because a specific notability guideline ("SNG") was met, offline sources must exist. However, no such sources were provided. The closer said in his closing statement that he felt the delete side had won the debate on policy grounds but there wasn't consensus to delete. Personally, I disagree; I feel that when you set aside the headcount and weigh the arguments, we're looking at a slam dunk "delete". —S Marshall T/C 12:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The subject competed at the Olympics, therefore meeting the notability requirements. Just because sources were not immediately provided prior to or after closure does not equate to delete. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to Re-open per nom. The closer noted, or alluded, in their own rationale the relative strength of the delete arguments and to the WP:VAGUEWAVES and misunderstanding by the "keep" camp that SNGs are an additional requirement and does not replace WP:GNG. --Doug Mehus T·C 14:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Does Deletion Review have the power to order a new decision (i.e., delete), or just restart the AfD? --Doug Mehus T·C 14:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • DRV can re-close a discussion correctly if it's concluded it was wrongly closed. It can't really consider new arguments or evidence, except sort of as a preemptory avoidance of a G4 deletion of a new page. WilyD 14:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, WilyD. That's more or less what I was thinking. I'm just wondering what happens when a decision is overturned, does the AfD get re-opened, does a second nomination get restarted, or would, in some cases, the deletion review decide in favour of the opposing argument (if one is clear)?Doug Mehus T·C 14:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both re-opening the discussion, and re-closing the discussion with a different outcome, are possible outcomes of this discussion. So you could argue Re-open or Overturn to merge as a !vote (or, I suppose, Overturn to delete, but that's such a comically wrong position you shouldn't seriously entertain it). WilyD 14:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Meh Endorse - really, it's a lot of words wasted over something incredibly unimportant (and yet - here come more!). WP:N is quite vague about how much sources are needed to meet it, really. It's decided largely by common practice, which is where the sub guidelines come in (I don't particularly like them, but they're equally as guideliney). To quote WP:N ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." - well, that is the case here, so whether or not the sources are really "enough" is a subjective judgement that reasonable people could (and did!) disagree about. In those kinds of cases, without a strong balance of headcount, no consensus is correct. It's a no consensus, open a merge/redirect discussion, don't come complaining to DRV. WilyD 14:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WilyD Agree the WP:GNG is too vague for biographies, so I tend to apply WP:CORPDEPTH to people. Obviously, people don't merge (though they do marry sometimes), but that's nonetheless trivial coverage which doesn't qualify to me. I think we need a WP:BIODEPTH component.Doug Mehus T·C 14:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are specific guidelines for sports people. There's some gripping in the discussion about scientists being less notable than athletes ... but we are. I wouldn't be fussed if he got redirected/merged to the olympic race ... but okay, we know where and when he was born, when he died, his best marathon time (perhaps a bit interesting, knowing he didn't finish in the olympics), so I'm not fussed if he has a bio either. Like, seriously, there are better things to do than worry over it. Go home, have a glass of Ardbeg 10 and watch an episode of Workin' Moms, it's a better use of your time than worrying about exactly how this content is organised. I would, but I've got code compiling ... WilyD 15:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse there's no way you can close that as Delete unless you think "meets this SNG" (with evidence) is such a weak argument it needs downweighting substantially, and I don't agree with that. Yes, article subjects are required to meet the GNG, but meeting the GNG is a property of the article subject, not what editors have dug up about it. It isn't possible to show definitively that a subject doesn't meet the GNG, the most you can say is that you tried and failed. And trying usually means that a monoglot English speaker Googled it and read what came up. For many subjects this misses the most likely locations of sources. If a subject does demonstrably meet some SNG then it's reasonable to hold that this creates at least the rebuttable presumption that sources exist. The subject here is an Italian athlete active in the 1920s, I can absolutely believe that the best potential sources aren't on the internet, and I don't see any evidence that anyone tried to search Italian newspaper archives or anything like that. Given this and the fact that opinion was pretty evenly split I think no consensus is the best outcome. I wouldn't be opposed to revising the SNG to say that merely taking part in the Olympics doesn't indicate notability in itself (11,238 athletes competed in the last Olympics), but that's a separate conversation. Hut 8.5 19:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hut 8.5 But, as I understand it notability is not not inherited. Thus, we have to prove such sources exist to meet WP:GNG, so I see a crucial flaw in that argument. There's nothing in this stub article (to the extent it's that) worth preserving attribution. Let someone local, with access to local sources, try again later. Given the stronger "delete" case, I actually think the closer could've survived WP:DRV had he or she closed as draftify/userfy. Doug Mehus T·C 19:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what point you're making there. NOTINHERITED is an essay which says you can't be notable just by being associated with something famous, e.g. the spouse of someone famous doesn't automatically become notable. That doesn't really have anything to do with this situation at all. From WP:N: Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article... If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. SNGs are supposed to indicate when sources are likely to exist, e.g. WP:BIO: People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. This doesn't mean that any old topic can be kept at AfD just because sources might exist, because you have to show that sources are likely to exist, e.g. by proving the subject passes an SNG. Hut 8.5 20:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• If that was how it worked, then wouldn't passing a SNG be an automatic keep at AfD irrespective of whether sources are found? How does that interact with WP:BURDEN?—S Marshall T/C 20:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:BURDEN is in relation to WP:V, not WP:N, and the question here is WP:N, as WP:V is met with the current sources. There are some who believe SNG is an automatic keep, and there are those who feel SNG's have no purpose, in this case if it were an American Olympic athlete from 2010 the !voting might be different. Some SNGs (WP:PROF) are indeed more lenient, intentionally so, than GNG, some (WP:NCORP) are intentionally more stringent (we're sick of spam), but most are meant, not to replace, but to support GNG in order help gauge the likelihood of existing (as opposed to readily available) sources. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The part of WP:BURDEN that I'd like to draw your attention to is where it says that material that's been challenged, or is likely to be challenged, must be supported an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports what's being said or it can be summarily removed. That AfD was full of people who wanted to tell me that "better sources must exist but it's unreasonable for you to make me actually link them" -- and I do feel that all of those statements are rather hard to reconcile with what our core content policies say in black and white. WP:ONUS is also worth reading, by the by.—S Marshall T/C 21:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• What statement in that article was challenged as unsupported? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• When Finball30 nominated it for deletion, he said the person wasn't notable. In context that's a pretty clear challenge to provide more reliable sources for the article as a whole, wouldn't you say? I've yet to be convinced that any of the provided sources meet WP:RS.—S Marshall T/C 21:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, now *that's* a different argument! If you are convinced the sources give inaccurate/unreliable information, and I come to the same conclusion (I haven't reviewed the sources as to their reliability), then I would wholeheartedly agree that information should be removed because of WP:V, but that wasn't part of the discussion. The question discussed was one of notability, not verifiability, and I don't know how to continue without re-doing the discussion which occurred, which is not what this is for. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, you're seeing a sharp dividing line between V and N (and I think RS?) I don't see it like that. For me, Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines that relate to sources are a continuum. They all say that if the sources are bad and you're challenged to produce better ones, it's understood that the content gets removed if you don't.

  On your other point it's very longstanding custom and practice that DRV has wide latitude to fix defects in deletion-related decisions and this does occasionally extend to relitigating the XFD. (First one of those that I recall participating in was Category:Senior Wranglers but there may be examples from before that.) Alternatively we can just reopen the AfD.—S Marshall T/C 01:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• To answer S Marshall's original question there is quite a bit of judgement involved in deciding whether other sources are likely to exist and the SNG is not perfect as an indicator of whether other sources exist, so I think you can make a reasonable argument for deletion. Note I'm not supporting overturning to Keep either. The GNG requires that the subject have sources which are (a) reliable, (b) independent of the subject and (c) devote substantial coverage to the subject. Only parts (a) and (b) appear in WP:V, the substantial coverage criterion is a pure notability standard. If the argument for deletion was that the subject had no coverage in third-party reliable sources then that would be a lot stronger. However the arguments made here were that the sources don't devote significant coverage to the subject, which isn't a verifiability issue. Hut 8.5 22:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse because this is a venue to determine whether the close was appropriate. In this case, two sides could not come to a consensus on the interpretation of a policy (and whether it should lead to a deletion) and thus the result was "no consensus" and closed correctly as such. If one side was arguing without policy entirely (or at least relevant policy), and the closer ignored that, that would be a good case to overturn, but that is not what happened here. As User:Hut 8.5 has pointed out, the debate on how the policy should be interpreted may go on, but that is not a discussion for a deletion review. Canadian Paul 22:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse because Keep is the right result, and No Consensus is close enough. I think that sports notability should override general notability rather than clarifying it, but that is my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The standard rule is that GNG trumps SNGs, but SNGs exist for a reason as they presume notability. The defect in this discussion is nobody effectively disproved the presumption that an Italian who ran in the Olympics a century ago received proper coverage per the WP:GNG, which admittedly would take a little bit of research, and likely in Italian newspaper archives. It was also not definitively proved by any of the keep !voters who relied on the SNG. No consensus is just about right. SportingFlyer T·C 06:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- I get that it's galling to be told, "Yes, your opinions are stronger and better argued, but I'm consigning them to the shredder anyway". As for GNG vs SNG, the most a subject-specific guideline can do is provide a rebuttable presumption that sources probably exist. It doesn't exempt an article from sourcing requirements forever. I think that, at a later AfD, if the promised sources haven't turned up we'd have to accept that the rebuttable presumption has been rebutted. Reyk _YO! 06:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't read the close that way at all. The closer acknowledges that they prefer the delete arguments, but they're closing according to the discussion, which didn't really form a consensus for that. It's not great that DRV tends to tell off any closing admin who explains what they're doing and why, forcing closing admins to act like black boxen if they want to avoid criticism. WilyD 09:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The result was unclear due to a split in application/understanding of policies/guidelines. Therefore a valid "no consensus". On the subject matter itself: Saying that SNG are overruled by GNG makes SNGs totally pointless and therefore against their intention. Most SNG are an easy indication that GNG is met, not overruling GNG. That includes the possibility that that assumption can be disproven (which has not been done here) or that the SNG might be in need of some tweaking (IE sugesting that an olympian should finish an event) but that needs to be discussed at policy level not here (My argument against such a tweak would be that most likely a dropout would generate more sources that a finish). Some SNGs actually overrule GNG, but they are rare and there for a good reason. Agathoclea (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse WP:NSPORTS (which encompasses WP:NOLY) says "In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline". Whether "should" means "must" is sufficiently vague that people can exercise their own judgement. Bearing that in mind there was no consensus. If the article in not policy-compliant then it can be suitably edited or sent for deletion based on an infringement of a policy rather than a guideline so as to lead to a more focusssed discussion. Thincat (talk) 23:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Sounds like one of the outcomes we need here is a RfC on whether SNGs trump the general notability guideline. Quite a few editors are seriously contending that they do.—S Marshall T/C 00:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• SNGs don't trump GNG, they give a presumption of GNG, the presumption can be rebutted, and it wasn't at this AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 00:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Nowhere is that written in any Wikipedia rules. WP:NOTABILITY clearly states "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." Dream Focus 12:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed. It isn't written in the Wikipedia rules, and therefore we need a discussion about whether it should be. Any AfD process, or any other notability or verifiability dispute, should come down to sources. My position is that in any discussion about sources, the winning move should be to provide an inline citation to a reliable source. When the winning move is to say "sources are presumed to exist and I don't need to provide them" -- as it was here -- we're looking at a defective process.—S Marshall T/C 14:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The idea that one trumps the other is part of the really unhelpful "writing Wikipedia is a game" mentality. Neither trumps the other, they're guidelines in concordance with one another. If one drops the idea they should be winning/losing against other editors, and asks "How do we serve the readership?" That's why things like NSPORT exist, because it's too easy to lose sight of what we're doing here. WilyD 07:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The key word in Dream Focus' sentence: presumed. AfDs do come down to sources, and SNGs are subservient to the GNG/sourcing being available. Here, there are sources available to show he participated in the Olympics, they're probably not enough to keep the article in the absence of other sources, but searching to see whether he would have been notable in his home country over 100 years ago isn't easy, he's now a non-BLP, and we do have an interest in both the collective set of notable Olympians and eliminating a bias against non-English speaking sources. I think you're looking for something black and white but this is very grey - we still don't know if he's not notable - so I maintain the close was proper. SportingFlyer T·C 07:26, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse proper reading Lightburst (talk) 02:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse A subject specific guideline was met. Dream Focus 12:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]