IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications – SNOW overturn and relist. It's rare for deletion reviews to be closed early, but I'm going to do it in this case because the matter has attracted more than enough commentary for the community's decision to be clear; and some people here are using this DRV as a platform to attack the closer, which the SNOW close is intended to stop. DRV is explicitly a drama-free zone which means that you are to be respectful as well as civil here.—S MarshallT/C 18:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The discussion clearly has a consensus for keep. The closing admin simply discarded all opinions they deemed 'not based on policy', and supervoted, rather than assess the actual consensus of that discussion. All opinions were based on sound rationale, and addressed whether sourcing was adequate to established notability and all but one participant were unanimous that the journal/magazine was notable enough for Wikipedia. See also User_talk:Spartaz#IEEE_Computer_Graphics_and_Applications. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reopen and relist. I'm not as convinced as Headbomb that the discussion provides a guideline-based consensus for keep, but there is certainly no consensus to delete/redirect. The close was as obvious an example of a supervote as I can remember seeing. (Note: I participated in the discussion, but did not provide a keep/delete opinion, and am still on the fence about which way I think this should go. In the discussion and in edits to the article during the discussion, several independent reliable sources on the topic were provided; the discussion has not yet clearly addressed the question of whether these sources have the required depth of coverage.) —David Eppstein (talk) 01:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep. Allow me to explain my "keep" !vote in the AfD. I argued that because the journal is included in three highly selective databases (Science Citation Index Expanded, Scopus, and MEDLINE-for the latter even in the highly-selective subset Index Medicus), it meets the requirements listed in the essay WP:NJournals. But for the sake of the discussion here, let's ignore the essay. Getting indexed in the three databases mentioned is not a trivial thing. It means that each one of them independently has evaluated the journal in-depth by an independent commission of specialists, who have concluded that this journal belongs to the most important ones in their field. To me, that's enough to demonstrate notability. Compare this, for example, to the guideline WP:ACADEMIC, where we assume a person is notable if they occupy a named chair or are editor-in-chief of a notable journal, which is also based on the reasoning that universities/publishers know better than us and only get above-average academics for this kind of positions. Finally, if we decide that this particular journal is not notable, then >95% of our articles on academic journals should be deleted. Would that really improve the encyclopedia? --Randykitty (talk) 07:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and re-close properly. People may !vote at AFD to override notability requirements and the consensus may, on occasion, be to de so. The criteria are by way of guidance – guidance that may sometimes be inappropriate. For example, community consensus may have changed but the documentation has not yet been updated, or the guidance may never have been sufficiently nuanced to deal with a particular situation. Also the !voters understanding of notability may be better than that of the person making the close. Thincat (talk) 09:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved); consensus is determined by by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy; through that lens this close was correct. If some editors here would prefer a different result then the correct response in to get the cited essay promoted to a policy or guideline and then overturn this close on that basis. BilledMammal (talk) 11:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Every opinion had quality arguments behind it. That the arguments aren't official policy is irrelevant, because policy is meant to reflect consensus. When consensus differs from "official" policy, consensus trumps policy because policies/guidelines/etc is not expected to be able to get the nuance of every situation. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've always been a bit confused how the WP:IAR policy intersects with the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy. In this specific case, one observation is that if Keep voters were voting on an WP:IAR basis, they probably should have done so explicitly so the closer could interpret their arguments more clearly. Suriname0 (talk) 14:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments here and at the AFD I find very helpful. How does a very well informed impartial observer know that the AFD discussion represented merely a "local consensus". Is there somewhere to look or ask to discover a possibly different global consensus? Clearly some people here and at the AFD seem to know that there should not be an article, but how do they know? Where do we find the "lens of Wikipedia policy" as it applies to this article? WP:NOTABILITY is a likely place to look but it only offers guidance, not instruction, for how to assess an article. It seems to me that at that point people can take a view (hopefully giving reasons). Whether those reasons necessarily involve IAR is up to the individual. Thincat (talk) 15:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to interpret my !vote as IAR, that's fine with me. If this journal gets deleted, the vast majority of journal articles would be open to deletion, which most certainly would leave the encyclopedia poorer. --Randykitty (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The simple solution to that would be to get WP:NJOURNALS made into a guideline; I'm not sure why that isn't the path that people are taking? BilledMammal (talk) 03:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You took part in the recent long consensus-free discussion/arguments attempting to propose that it be made into a guideline as a pretext for deprecating it, and yet you think that would be a "simple solution" and you don't understand why others disagree? Or is this some form of sarcasm that I don't recognize? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a simple solution; if this isn't a local consensus, then there will be a consensus to promote NJOURNALS to a guideline. If this is a local consensus (and thus the close is correct) then it won't be.
If people aren't willing to make that proposal then I can only assume that the reason is because they don't believe that there will a consensus for this proposal - in other words, they believe that this is a local consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 04:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You took part in the discussion. You observed that there was no consensus, neither for one side nor for the other in that discussion. And yet you are insisting that the lack of consensus there means that one of the two sides is correct and that the other side's opinions must be completely discarded. I'm going to put this down as "willfully obtuse" rather than sarcasm. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd forgotten about that RfC; thank you for reminding me. That result gives the closer no option other than to disqualify the !votes based on criterion one as a local consensus.
I would still, however, encourage that an RfC on promoting the entire essay to a guideline be opened - and if it continues being cited I might do so myself. BilledMammal (talk) 05:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it will actually help any on this topic but can we please relist this, and leave the close instead as a comment (administrativeor otherwise) or delete opinion? Thanks. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reopen and relist per David Eppstein, though I will add that the WP:DRV listing may have been premature, as closing admin Spartaz may yet have been prevailed upon to relist in their talk page discussion. In cases like these, relisting is overwhelmingly the best practice, as it creates opportunities not just for additional opinions, but additional development of the article itself. BD2412T 17:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As an aside, it is remarkable how varied these journal AfDs can turn out. Here we have a journal that easily clears NJournals. And here we have a journal that is an epic fail of NJournals and GNG, but still gets multiple "keep" !votes based on arguments like "it's a peer-reviewed academic journal". Go figure. --Randykitty (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reopen: I didn't participate in this AfD, but as someone who has participated in dozens of journal AfDs over many years, WP:NJournals is a hard-won compromise among editors in the academic journal field that has been used as a guideline for notability in AfD discussions for many years. Using the essay isn't a one-off IAR, it is adhering to a longstanding consensus. The closer may not have been aware of this history and so made a flawed call. I'll also note that the indices don't just provide, e.g., an impact factor, they usually have a good bit a basic information about the journal that is good, verified-by-an-RS content. That content by itself often supports an infobox and a short stub of an article. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 18:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think "adhering to a longstanding consensus" is a bit of an exaggeration. User:Vanderwaalforces closed the RfC from last month as no consensus, writing in part that "views are divided on whether the inclusion of a journal in selective citation indices alone should be considered sufficient for establishing notability." Suriname0 (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah sorry for not being clear, I'm taking the long view, over the past 8-10 years or so. As I said, this has been a hard-fought consensus and not every editor is on board. But if you look at the history of journal AfDs, most, and nearly every journal AfD I've participated in, have been judged against NJournals. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 00:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's helpful, thanks for clarifying! Suriname0 (talk) 04:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Relist - The close was a supervote. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist - Clear supervote and dismissal of the consensus established. EggRoll97(talk) 04:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - There clearly is not consensus to delete/redirect. I don't see policy-based consensus to keep either. While an overturn to no consensus could be appropriate as well, I think relisting will allow time for consensus to be driven one way or the other (particularly with added visibility from this DRV). FrankAnchor 13:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved) - Nobody even tried to post not even one source that met WP:N (WP:GNG), as far as I can see, nor were ther any in the article. All the "keep, meets NJOURNALS" votes were properly discounted. All that's left is the obvious WP:ATD of redirect. If Wikipedia guidelines and consensus policy is to mean anything, closers must be allowed to discount AFD votes that don't properly apply N. "Keep, meets [essay]" is a throwaway vote. NJOURNALS is an essay. Levivich (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is an accurate description of events. My comment in the AfD listed three independent reliably-published prose sources [1][2][3] and during the AfD one of these and one other were added to the article [4]. There was no discussion within the AfD of whether these were in-depth, but I think one of them at least may be, and my edit summary adding it to the article says so [5]. In addition, plenty of the comments described the indexes about the articles as being the necessary reliable sources for them; whether the summary information provided by an index counts as an in-depth source is a matter of ongoing debate, but it is disingenuous to claim that listing such sources was not attempted. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you or anyone in the discussion suggest any of those met GNG? Are you now suggesting any of those meet GNG? Levivich (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read the edit summary I linked above strongly implying that the source it added contributed to GNG? Or are you now just throwing out rhetorical questions to distract from the point that your endorse comment here is based on airy nothing? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit summary is irrelevant as it isn't part of the AfD discussion. Levivich (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is what you said about those sources in the discussion: "I can find books calling it a technical journal [1], "a technical journal that almost comes into the magazine category" [2], or a monthly magazine [3] but without much detail that would help explain those labels."
You did not even suggest those sources met GNG in the discussion, in fact you seemed to concede they didn't ("without much detail" doesn't sound like SIGCOV). If you're now saying that one or more do meet GNG, that might be a reason to reopen. But right now I'm not seeing that any of those three meet GNG, nor am I seeing you or anyone else argue that they do. Levivich (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the sources do or do not meet GNG is not a matter for this DRV to decide. What is clear is that (1) sources were presented during the discussion and during improvements to the article over the course of the discussion, (2) the effect of those sources on the notability of the subject was not adequately addressed during the discussion, (3) it would have been reasonable for a closer to relist, noting the lack of focus on those sources within the discussion in a relist comment, but instead the close statement totally ignored them, and (4) your endorse comment here falsely presents that situation as "no sources were provided". —David Eppstein (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say "no sources were provided." Levivich (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relist (commenting as participant). Tossing out !votes because they make no argument to any kind of encyclopedia-worthiness is one thing; this close was something else. XOR'easter (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I can only see one person apart from the nominator who supported getting rid of the article (JoelleJay). That's not enough to support a closure of Delete or Redirect. If the debate had only consisted of the nomination and JoelleJay's comment then it would have been either relisted, closed as soft delete or closed as no consensus. In fact the debate consisted of that plus a load of people who supported keeping the article. If we close as Redirect then we're saying, perversely, that a bunch of people supporting keeping the article made it possible for the article to be deleted. Furthermore the GNG is not a core policy, it's a guideline which allows occasional exceptions, and AfDs can occasionally keep things which don't meet the notability guidelines. Hut 8.5 18:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The merit of the arguments notwithstanding, it's very difficult to see how an AfD with five keeps, one delete, and three comments could be closed with a consensus to redirect; even if all of the arguments to keep were horrendously bad, it's just not the case that the discussion resulted in a consensus to delete or to redirect. jp×g 23:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist, supervote closure. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (uninvolved), as a clear supervote closure and one of several questionable closes by the user in question. BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep. There can be cases where a discussion closes like this despite lopsided naive counts, but it generally involves 1 !voter being a respected expert and the 5 voters being recruited randoms from Reddits voting based on ILIKEIT. That wasn't the case here. The way notability essays gain power is precisely via the consensus of the community. If the closer truly felt that this essay has no power, they need to !vote that, not close with a supervote. SnowFire (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relist I agree with the closer that the keep arguments are generally weak and discounting weak contributions in a deletion discussion is core to our methods. I agree with the DR nominator (and others) that the conclusion of the closer is a supervote not reflective of the discussion. That said, I have no problem with allowing discretionary decision making to closers, but such discretion should be exercised at the point when a discussion is exhausted, which I do not necessarily see from this discussion, especially as there was a fence-sitting contributor. I'd suggest a better intervention here would have been for the closer to either contribute with a !vote to redirect or to have relisted, noting the weakness of the keep arguements and seeking to direct/concentrate the discussion further. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. Seems to be a clear supervote by the closer. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Not a plausible misspelling, and not a common typo (603 ghits, and only 19 different enough from each other that Google doesn't collapse them, including WP:Redlink examples). I'd endorse this if it had been deleted as an R3 instead of a hoax, so keep salted. Further, none of the other letter-doubling typos of "African elephant" have ever existed except for African eleephant (which I'll be taking to RFD when this DRV concludes, on the off chance we have to go through the full process for this one too), and neither has eelephant, so I can't help thinking you're bringing African eelephant up solely to make some kind of disruptive point. —Cryptic 16:56, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cryptic: Firstly, no, I'm not trying to make any kind of disruptive point (I just noticed this randomly). Secondly, I believe that plausible means that it is "conceivably true or likely" (quoting Wiktionary). Therefore I think it is plausible someone could accidentally type "African eelephant". Even if only 50 people per year use the redirect, it is still a useful redirect. —Matr1x-101(Ping me when replying) {user page(@ commons) - talk} 11:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'll note that both Wikipedia's search function and most mainstream search engines are smart enough to correct for minor typos like these. As Cryptic alludes to above, it's impractical to have redirects for every typo of this kind, and not particularly useful either. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Matr1x-101: By the way, isn't this the incorrect venue for this discussion? Deletions under CSD G3 are eligible for appeal at RfU.—TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Requests for undeletion's header says not to ask for G3s, but more to the point, they won't restore anything controversial - and the creation protection shows that it is. This is the best venue, though WP:RFPP sometimes deals with unsaltings too. —Cryptic 01:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I misread that sentence and thought that those were the accepted CSDs for that venue. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation based on WP:R#KEEP, #5 stating in part, Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways.EggRoll97(talk) 04:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has claimed that they'd find this useful, just speculated (contrary to evidence) that someone else might. —Cryptic 05:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation of redirect because redirects are cheap. If it has been mentioned as an example of a misspelling, that is close enough. Redirects are cheap, and an element is a massive beast weighing several tons. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's been mentioned as an example of an implausible misspelling. That doesn't make it plausible. —Cryptic 05:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cryptic: I don't understand what you mean by "it is implausible". You said that it has 603 ghits. I think you're forgetting that redirects are cheap; there's at least a few people (maybe ~20 being conservative) per year that would make this misspelling as evidenced by the ghits, and use this redirect in a year. There is no reason not to have this redirect. —MATRIX!(a good person!)[Citation not needed at all; thank you very much!] 11:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There were 19 non-duplicate hits among 603 mirrors and other duplicates (more now), and the last redirect created to illustrate this point has gotten three hits this year - about as many as you'd expect from people seeing it on WhatLinksHere and wondering wtf it's doing there. —Cryptic 12:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cryptic: Still, I don't believe that there is a good reason not to have the redirect. If you zoom out and look at the redirect you mentioned's history from it's inception (small note: I have omitted everything pre-2017 since that was mostly vandalism), you can see that there are regular misspellings happening, and that this redirect is therefore somewhat useful. —MATRIX!(a good person!)[Citation not needed at all; thank you very much!] 14:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The red link page has to have an example of an unnecessary red link. People think it is enormously funny to then create the target so that it's blue. As explained above, redirects like this are not necessary and are impossible in practice (how many misspellings of each word in a title are there?). The pageviews are because it's a red link example. Johnuniq (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know you meant it rhetorically, but I've already looked at the numbers. For just this class of typo - adding an extra copy of a single letter - it would be between 114,905,950 and 305,143,807 redirects, so 8½-22½ times as many redirects as currently exist. That's the number of times letters appear in the titles of pages in the main namespace, including (the high number) or not including (the low) other redirects like Loxodonta. They're both minor overcounts because they count already-doubled letters (like the f in giraffe) twice, and don't account for cases where redirects for such a doubling represent either another subject (like Cerone/Cerrone) or are reasonable misspellings that already exist (like Lattitude). —Cryptic 02:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Creating this as a redirect to African elephant seems like exactly the kind of redirect that WP:PANDORA warns against. Wikipedia's search, as poor as it is, is sufficient to get readers to the article they are looking for here; and whether or not this is a plausible misspelling I don't think it is a particularly likely one: certainly not significantly more likely than Aafrican elephant, Affrican elephant etc. none of which are redirects. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation as a reasonable misspelling per WP:RPURPOSE. FrankAnchor 13:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to neutral. I do maintain this is a plausible misspelling. However, if this was included as a redirect, where would we draw the line for what is and isn't an acceptable redirect? A search with this misspelling would likely reachthe intended result anyway (see this serach for "eelephant") FrankAnchor 12:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If we allow re-creation, then we'll probably need to have a separate discussion about replacing the example in Wikipedia:Red link. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 17:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not particularly useful as a misspelled redirect: redirects are cheap but we should not have redirects for all possible combinations of doubled letters or transpositions in article titles, and I see no compelling argument that this misspelling is particularly likely. More, adding this as a redirect would destroy its value as an example of a redlink. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Such a redirect would likely be deleted at RfD, so its creation should not be allowed here. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 02:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No action. This is not plausible, and process for process' sake. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have undone the nominator's withdrawal due to there being arguments against endorsement. EggRoll97(talk) 23:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [reply]
It is long-established practice that an XFD or DRV ceases to be the "property" of the nominator once it has been opened, and if anyone has independently expressed the same view as the nominator, the discussion should be seen out for its usual duration in the absence of a WP:SNOW-level of consensus. Stifle (talk) 07:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.