Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 1

Template:Open Audio License (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

It was deleted because it was supposedly "identical to" CC-by-SA 2.0. that's not true; it's compatible with and roughly equivalent to CC-by-SA-2.0. However, it is a distinct license, and we should not be lying about what something is licensed under - which is what we'd be doing if we used CC-by-SA instead - simply because the license isn't particularly common. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Was the template actually used in any article at the time of deletion?—S Marshall T/C 12:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I honestly don't see how one could know that. What I can say is that, with Featured sounds about to go on the Main Page, there will be a regular need for local uploads, many of which are OAL-licensed. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found one transclusion,

talk) 19:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Good find. I see that this file was created by the DRV nominator today. It therefore appears to me that the TfD nominator was right to say that it was an unused file licence, so the deletion was appropriate in the circumstances, and I endorse this deletion. However, the DRV nominator is right to say that there are still a few historic files that use this licence, and there is no reason why such files should not be uploaded to Wikipedia. And if we're using files under the OEL then we ought to have a template that says how they may be reused. So, notwithstanding my "endorse", I think DRV should undelete the template.—S Marshall T/C 19:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

• Endorse- consensus was pretty clear here. Disagreeing with the outcome of an AfD is not grounds to overturn it. Reyk _YO! 06:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YIf 200 people agree on the creation of an article about Sarah Jessica Parker's mole because "they find it cool", it does't change the fact that the topic is not notable. Yes, there were a total of "keeps", but their argument was unsound and did not prove any notability. Instead of reading how many people agreed with each other, how about you read what they agreed on? If you disagree, can you summarize the strong guideline-supported argument the consensus was based on? Feedback ^☎ 06:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article wasn't kept because people "thought it was cool", but because consensus formed that there was substantial enough sourcing to justify it. If I had participated in the AfD I probably would not have voted keep, but that doesn't mean the keep opinions were so unreasonable as to necessitate reversing the outcome. DRV is for correcting blatant errors, not overruling a consensus you personally disagree with. Reyk _YO! 11:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse— I can only shake my head at the consensus reached, but it is quite clear. Not a close no reasonable administrator could have made, so nothing to do here at DRV. Yoenit (talk) 08:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse— per,....ummm...AfD result. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I may disagree with the consensus, and in fact I do, but the closure was in line therewith and DRV is not AFD round 2. Endorse. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is that possible? You seem to believe that just because a lot of people were in agreement, does not mean consensus was achieved. What I have always understood about
    WP:CONSENSUS). Because the arguments to keep the article were unsound and against Wikipedia policy, even though a number of people agreed, consensus was not achieved. And when consensus is NOT achieved, and a closing admin says it WAS, then I believe it is appropriate for deletion review. Feedback ^☎ 11:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Policy is a codification of what is done and how things work on any given issue. Since policy, with the exception of Foundation-level issues like NFCC, copyright, and so on, is subject to change and amendment by consensus, a consensus to keep a certain article may override a policy in a certain area, just like a parliament may pass a law that contradicts an older law and this is deemed to repeal the old one. Stifle (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Policy can be overridden if there is a strong argument backing it, but tell me, what strong argument did you see in this AFD to avoid policies such as
        WP:CONSENSUS? Feedback ^☎ 16:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • This might sound like semantics to you, but other than
          WP:IAR, for that matter. And even if we were talking about policies, you still need a consensus to interpret them to determine how that policy should apply in a particular instance. postdlf (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
          ]
        • "Consensus" is the position held by the preponderance of contributors at a discussion. Consensus does not mean "these !votes don't count towards the consensus because they're wrong; only !votes that are right count". See also User:MZMcBride/Memes#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy. Stifle (talk) 09:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• There was insufficient consensus to delete this article at that discussion. You can AfD it again in a few months, you know.—S Marshall T/C 12:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- I find myself in agreement with Stifle. The discussion was flawed and the consensus flies in the face of common sense and established policy. The problem is, that the closing admin, absent any pressing reason to delete (copyvio or BLP violations), absolutely MUST respect that consensus. Period. End of story. Things like
  have a nice cup of tea, relax, and go on about your life. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Okay, what is going on here? I have to ask this, because you're being very contradictory: What do you think consensus means? Because

WP:CONSENSUS says that consensus is the strongest argument, while you apparently think that consensus is the most popular argument. So tell me, what do you think consensus was at this particular AFD? Feedback ^☎ 17:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Consensus is whatever it wants to be, whatever the people in the discussion decide it is. It does not have to conform to the

policy if it doesn't want to. And when that happens, the closing admin must, except for a few specifically spelled out exceptions, respect that consensus and close the AFD that way, which is what happened in this case, as the consensus was clearly keep. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse own close As it happens I don't agree with the consensus either. If I was allowed to be judge, jury, and executioner this would be gone right now and the "keep" side would have brought it here, but as has already been noted it was not my job to do what I wanted but rather to interpret what consensus was reached in the course of discussion.
  talk) 17:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• endorse Beeblebrox works on the same principle that I do -- the authority for determining consensus is the community. As it happens, in this case i agree with the consensus; he does not--yet both of us would come to the same conclusion at the AfD. That's what closing admins are supposed to be doing. It takes a very strong argument to discard the consensus of a representative number of good faith non-spa contributors addressing the issue. In answer to User:Feedback,m consensus is consensus neither of the majority nor the best, but of the responsible. If it were the bare majority, we'd be at the mercy of meatpuppets; it it were the best, who is to determine the "best." It is always possible that one person is right and everybody else is wrong, but the a priori odds are so much against it, that I would not make a such a statement unless I were very sure I could prove it,-- and one's own opinion of one's good judgment is not proof of anything. My statement that the arguments I support are the "best" is totally worthless, of the same status as ILIKEIT. That's why Wikipedia has a reliability beyond that of any one contributor. That's why we work as a community. DGG ( talk ) 18:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse a decent close which respected consensus. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. It's not often that I poke my head into the dark corners of Wikipedia, but I don't see how the results of the AfD can possibly be misinterpreted. The strongest argument made there (and, in my opinion, one of the few arguments that actually matter at AfD) is that there are sufficiently many sources which discuss the subject. Coincidentally, this argument was also the one that earned the most supporters. We've all seen outcomes at AfD that have surprised or frustrated us, but you can't take it personally. You just have to shrug it off and keep rolling the ball up the hill. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Expressed consensus is clear, and in handling list articles admins should ordinarily defer to community discretion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably the main problem in AFDs. It seems most of you (all of you) have a different definition of "consensus" than Wikipedia policy. Consensus isn't when users go to the page and agree on a course of action, its when readers go to a page and agree on the most LOGICAL and SENSICAL course of action supported by the strongest argument. If 200 people were to agree on deleting

There were two arguments found in this AFD. One, the most popular argument, was that there were sources that established the notability of African American prejudice in the film industry and therefore the article is notable. However, because those references do not establish a notability for this specific topic, those sources do not count. The users who agreed with this assumed the notability could be inherited by a broader subject, when in fact

I don't understand why the presence of this article is getting you so worked up. You are devoting alot of energy to this that suggests some degree of feeling about it....? Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time, DRV is not AfD round 2. There is a proper place to debate the suitability of sources and the strength of arguments, and that's the AfD. If the overwhelming majority of good-faith editors are swayed by one argument over another, then consensus can form that way even if you personally disagree with it. What you are demanding is that a closing admin substitute your opinion for the community's consensus on the grounds that, because the community disagrees with you, it can't really be consensus. That's ludicrous. Consensus at the AfD was clear and it's even more clear at this DRV. The article is not going to be deleted, and you need to accept that. Reyk _YO! 02:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"majority of good-faith editors are swayed by one argument over another, then consensus can form that way"... So you really think consensus is formed when a majority of people agree on something? (And it's not this specific article that bothers me, it's the way most of you are confusing what consensus is. The reason for

WP:MAJORITY, etc.) Feedback ^☎ 02:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

If I thought the majority had simply cast votes without evaluating the sources and arguments, you might have a point. But I don't think that is what happened here. I see that a lot of people have looked at the sources, understood the deletion rationale, and later commenters have taken into account improvements made to the article during the discussion. I see that most of the commenters have acted in good faith and with due diligence, and come to a conclusion after reasonable discussion- and that is' what consensus is. Reyk _YO! 02:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback, you didn't answer my question. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did. I said it wasn't the article's presence that bothered me, just the fact that a lot of users here don't know what consensus is and have decided to go against such an obvious deletion because of it. The system does not always work, I'm okay with that, but when the system isn't working because people don't allow it to, that upsets me. Feedback ^☎ 03:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In practice DRV will always inevitably be AfD round 2, regardless of whatever may be written to the contrary. . A close is only correct if it is reasonable. An unreasonable close, whether based on vote counting or administrator super-vote or any thing in between, no matter what the rationale may be, is not a correct close:L admins have the obligation to exercise good judgment and act reasonably, and the basic thing we try to see at RfA is whether they seem capable of that, not their technical knowledge. To determine if a close is reasonable, the issues have to be examined, and the close compared with what other people think is reasonable in the circumstances. This is true of all appealate procedures. The fundamental rule is that WP is not a bureaucracy. DGG ( talk ) 03:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback, why are you ignoring reference number 2 then? Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Historical dictionary of African American cinema? What does that have to do with anything? You won't find ANY source on that page that primarily speaks about the list of African American Golden Globes nominees and winners. ANY. There is no significant coverage on the topic (not notable). Feedback ^☎ 04:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Two last comments: 1) apart from
  WP:SNOW, as it's a waste of time to continue an XFD/DRV when the "discussion" is just a sole dissenter tendentiously disagreeing with all of the otherwise unanimous participants. postdlf (talk) 04:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Again, someone else with this "majority" mentality. If Wikipedia were a democracy and [wether good-faithed or not] uninformed people such as yourself who obviously have not read the discussion to see that the arguments to keep the article were ridiculously flawed would override Wikipedia with very bad decisions and it will all be because "majority rules". Feedback ^☎ 04:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I remember why I never participate in discussions like these: people on both sides waste all of their time yammering about stuff that doesn't actually matter, and nothing gets accomplished except that people make enemies. People who aren't Feedback: If you haven't realized by now that you aren't going to change Feedback's mind, you're delusional. People who are Feedback: If you haven't realized by now that you aren't going to change everyone else's mind, you're delusional. Everyone: It has already been clearly established that the outcome of this particular AfD is not going to change. Any further comments in this discussion will not improve the encyclopedia in any way. Time to retract claws, shake hands, and do some work in article space. Or, if that doesn't suit your fancy, do the next best thing: try to recruit female editors. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the consensus is clear that this article belongs on Wikipedia, I guess we should be consistent and start creating List of White Golden Globe nominees and winners, List of Left-handed Golden Globe nominees and winners, List of Christian Golden Globe nominees and winners, List of racist Golden Globe nominees and winners. Also, List of left-handed Black Christian Golden Globe nominees and winners, etc. Feedback ^☎ 04:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Request speedy/snow close; the result is established and the DRV is heading towards NPA territory. Stifle (talk) 09:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, before this gets out of hand...Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NPA? Where? Feedback ^☎ 14:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thirded.—S Marshall T/C 17:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]