- Chris Parmelee (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
I think that Chris Parmelee's article deletion deserves some review. If you look at the article's history, apparently some sort of concensus was reached back in March or something like that before the season even started. It was, however, never followed through on.
A new banner was added by Giants27 just before the All Star game, then immediately removed. It was my impression at that point that the nomination for deletion was reconsidered. Instead, the deletion concensus from 3 months earlier was finally being enforced. That makes no sense.
Even if the original concensus was correct, the season has since started, he was named a FSL league All Star. Add that to the fact that he was a #1 pick, and he's since become notable if he wasn't before. He was also the All star game's home run derby winner and the FSL's player of the week the week following the All star game. That's pretty natable to me.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason?
talk) 19:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC) [reply
- What outcome are you looking for here, please, Johnny Spasm? This is deletion review, and that article hasn't been deleted, so I'd normally presume you're asking us to change the result to "delete"... is that right?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A merge outcome at AfD is merely a flavor of keep, and holds no more weight than any other merge discussion. If things've changed regarding the article, feel free to just undo the merge. So, as stated above, unless you want the AfD changed to actually be delete, you can just withdraw this. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly disagree with that advice. "Merge" is not merely a flavor of keep. Merge preserves the info from an article that doesn't merit a stand alone article. I'm not sure if you bothered to read the AfD, but merge and redirect was clearly the consensus. That was because the editors (including myself) did not believe that the subject was notable enough for a stand alone article. You can't just run around undoing merges that were done as a result of an AFD. Winning a home run contest and being named player of the week don't really change that. Nor do I believe that being an all-star in a minor league, especially when it is only the third tier of minor league ball, does it either. I'd also point out that a number of other players from the team were similarly merged and redirected as well. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Niteshift36 that BOLDly undoing consensus decisions should be avoided. On the other hand, there is support for the view that merely occurring at AfD does not confer extra weight to non-delete outcomes. However, a well-attended AfD is likely have better (diversity and numbers) participation and admin-evaluated closure, and thus a stronger consensus. Incidentally, there's a November 2008 discussion where Lifebaka and I agree on this exact point, and subsequent discussions have not rejected it. Flatscan (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm horrified at the suggestion that a "merge" at AfD might be enforceable over a local talk-page consensus to "keep", or vice versa. AfD discussions take place under time pressure and often include weakly-rationalised !votes, while local talk-page consensus is likely to evolve only from editors with a genuine interest in the article. I would certainly view the local talk-page consensus as the one that should prevail.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 07:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But there has been no local discussion. The complaining editor just took it upon himself to revert the merge and redirect with the explaination that it didn't make sense to him. This AfD did not have some unusual result. Nearly all the information was merged into a logical place (the article about Twins minor league players) and if someone searched by name, they'd still find him. You're acting as if the info was just deleted and he was given a mention in the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 10:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, in this case. My remark was more general in nature and should perhaps have been on the talk page instead.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, only 6 editors !voted on the AfD, but 2 said delete and 4 thought the merge was the way to go (some wanted it without the redirect). But I think the group was reasonably diverse and experienced editors. Two were admins (including the nominator), 2 were members of the WP Baseball project, 1 that regularly edits sports articles. Nobody voted to keep. I was mistaken in that I did not !vote in that AfD, but did choose merge and re-direct in several other AfD's involving players from that team. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How is the idea that a consensus at AfD trumps a local consensus meant to work? Suppose a local editor puts up an AfD, and three other local editors vote keep on the page. They convince the nominator of the merits of keeping two separate pages, but meanwhile 10 AfD regulars weigh in, all arguing for merge, citing precendents here, there and everywhere, and not responding to arguments by the local editors that the resmblance is superficial. Do the four local editors really have the task of policing the merge outcome? What's going to happen if they
WP:IAR and unmerge? — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC) [reply
- You are really misrepresenting the result. As I said above, the info was well merged into a reasonable article about minor league players in the Twins organization. The major info was left intact. It wasn't merged into some one or two line entry. Please don't lecture me about AGF when I say this, but the "regulars" in the article might have a somewhat partisan view of what is "notable". The admin who nominated the article probably had good reason for doing it. The ones who regularly edit other baseball articles are probably well aware of what the norms in the baseball projects are. Instead of dealing with hypotheticlas, let's deal with the reality. This merge was undone by an editor who simply didn't like the result. He did it with no attempt at discussion. The AfD went full term and the onformation was preserved, just simply moved to a related article and the search term was redirected. What was actually lost here? A stand alone article about someone of questionable notability, that was nominated for deletion was placed into an article that has no chance of being deleted. Other stand alones were given the same treatment. The info is still there and is as "safe" as it gets around here. Why are we acting like this is a bad thing? Niteshift36 (talk) 10:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And what does that mean in practice? That we at DRV vote endorse and whoever closes this DRV then executes that outcome by remerging? It seems to me that doing things through the usual ways, that don't involve deletion policy, is best: for example, through
WP:DR. What benefits are we supposed to derive through using what looks to me like the wrong process? — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC) [reply
- There is no remerging needed. It IS merged and redirected. He wants to undo it. Without sounding like I'm using
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, there is precendent for the merge and redirect that is in place. Every player from that team got the same treatment at some point (and no, not all the same people voted it in the AfD's, nor was it a mass AfD). My question remains unanswered: What was actually lost in the merge and redirect? Why is putting the info in a "safe" article, where it will remain available and not run the isk of getting zapped in an AfD a bad thing? Niteshift36 ( talk) 11:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC) [reply
- The appropriate place for this discussion is Talk:Chris Parmelee; it's unfortunate that you were told otherwise. Since your undoing the redirect was contested, please make your case there and establish an updated consensus. DRV would be appropriate if merge was an incorrect evaluation of consensus and the AfD was recent. Flatscan (talk) 03:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am the one who gave him the advice. He disagreed with the consensus opinion and wanted to debate it. As far as I could see, this would be the better place to do it. I'm not sure how you would discuss it at Talk:Chris Parmelee since the article and it's talk page redirect. Or did you mean on the redirected talk page? It is worth pointing out that there are a number of DRV requests on here at the moment that appeal the results of an AfD that did not result in deletion, so I'm not sure why this wouldn't fit here. I was a little concerned with the age of the AfD, but I wasn't sure if there was an actual deadline on it. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article redirects, but its Talk page has a couple templates on it, including {{
oldafdfull}}. Maybe Talk:Minnesota Twins minor league players would be better, but the way I read Johnny Spasm's nomination, he makes the case that Parmelee earned individual recognitions after the AfD that make him notable. I browsed the active and recent DRVs looking for bluelinks, and all the ones I saw were non-delete AfDs appealing for deletion and one delete and redirect. I expect that this DRV will close endorse without significant discussion of the content details, possibly with referral elsewhere. Flatscan ( talk) 04:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC) [reply
- Restore I don't know where in my original statement anyone would get the idea that I was in favor of deleting. I strongly believe that Chris Parmelee deserves his own entry.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 09:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. This item shouldn't have been nominated, since the nominator hasn't really asserted that the AfD closing was inappropriate. But he hasn't withdrawn the nomination, so I'll endorse the decision as a correct reflection of Wikipedia guidelines and the consensus of the discussion. BRMo (talk) 11:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse — There's nothing here that can't be sorted out without admin privileges. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Lifebaka and Charles Stewart are correct.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Merge and redirect results in AFDs are editing recommendations and are not binding. That said, if the outcome reflects a clear consensus from a decent number of editors then arguably the merge shouldn't be undone without first obtaining a clear consensus on the article talk page that includes a good cross section of editors involved in the deletion discussion. In your shoes I'd open a talk page discussion on the article talk and invite the participants in the AFD to comment. The consensus from that discussion should be binding. ]
|
