Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 January 9

Template:Unbulleted list (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This discussion was originally closed as keep, but then changed several days later to delete. The closing admin, Fastily‎, asked me to open a DRV here, expressing uncertainty on how it should be closed. By my biased reading of the discussion, the rationale for deleting it is that it is "redundant" to {{plainlist}}. However, the {{plainlist}} template does not work in image captions, while {{unbulleted list}} does. Andy called this reason "invalid" since the example given had only recently been converted to use {{plainlist}} and/or {{unbulleted list}}. However, this does not change the fact that {{plainlist}} fails in image captions, while {{unbulleted list}} does not. There is also no technical reason why {{unbulleted list}} cannot be simply changed to use "class=plainlist", which would make it generate the exact same html as {{plainlist}} (see what appears to be agreement with this point here). In addition, the {{unbulleted list}} template uses the same syntax as some other list templates, like {{collapsible list}}, which means it can be indented when used within another infobox, which makes the wikitext easier to read. I did not cite this reason in the debate, but one which has become very clear to me when I attempted to convert a few instances of the unbulleted list template. Finally, by not orphaning the {{unbulleted list}} template, we save needless edits to a few thousand articles, since adding "class=plainlist" would only require a single edit to the parent template (see here). Frietjes (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Overturn to keep, albeit slightly reluctantly because I really dislike the syntax requiring all the list items as arguments, rather than the alternative method with {{plainlist}} ... {{endplainlist}}. But that {{unbulleted list}} works in image captions is a pretty compelling rationale for me, assuming that {{plainlist}} cannot be made to do so too. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 21:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be 'overturn deletion' then? — Edokter (talk) — 21:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, that wasn't very clear of me, was it. I meant "Endorse" as in, "I endorse the review and overturn", but I have clarified. :o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 18:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion as the instigator of both {{Unbulleted list}} and {{Plainlist}}, which was intended to replace it; and as the nominator for the deletion discussion under review. We don't need two very similar templates, with slightly different syntaxes, for the same purpose. That will only confuse editors. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to Keep on procedural grounds. When Andy asked Fastily te reconsider, Fastily should have asked Andy to open a DVR. Changing a Keep to a Delete days after closure is out of procedure. I myself already removed the discussion from my watchlist. As for the tempalte, {{unbulleted list}} does provide extra functionality that {{plainlist}} does not, namely styling and the fact that it works in image caption. It's a clunky template, but there is no way around that. I'd love to see it go, but not without a proper replacement. — Edokter (talk) — 21:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Is it true that this template has over 10,000 transclusions and if so, do we know how many pages will be broken by deleting it? I'm quite strongly opposed to deletion unless it can be shown that the cleanup afterwards is manageable and can be achieved in a reasonable timescale without disruption to end-users. I'm also troubled because I can't seem to find a consensus to delete in that discussion. —S Marshall T/C 22:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  the transclusion count is now closer to 3000, after efforts by many editors (including myself, e.g., see edits to college athlete recruit end) to replace it with other templates. and, typically, a deletion outcome does include placing the template in

  WP:TFD/H, until it can be orphaned. but, I do agree that there was no consensus to delete, or I would not have started this DRV. Frietjes (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Comment I really can't see why there would be two decisions without a new discussion, so the first decision, which seems properly arrived at, should stand, while the later one, a couple of days later, should be overturned. Another option would be to relist, since two decisions is rather odd. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 05:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I asked Fastily‎ to review his closing decision, as I believed it was incorrect. He did so, and agreed with me. This is entirely in keeping with the deletion process. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to disagree; opening a DRV on the original decision would have been the proper procedure. — Edokter (talk) — 13:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, its not. Why do you think people are required to try and work it out with the admin who closed the debate before coming here? Admins are allowed to overturn their own closures. Yoenit (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can you cite me the policy which states this? I am having trouble locating it (probably because it doesn't exist). Fact is, arbitrarely changing the outcome of an AfD two days after closure is a serious breach of procedure; it is exactly the situation what DRV is intended for. — Edokter (talk) — 16:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, I found this snippet on WP:DRV: "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator." First of all, what issue? Andy disagreed with the outcome; that is not an "issue" warranting a reconsideration. The original closure was correct; there was no consensus to delete. — Edokter (talk) — 16:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree, the closer usually has the right to change their close. It is sometimes wise to pass on making such a change and defer to DRV however. Hobit (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep There was a clear consensus to keep the template. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 00:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep consensus was clear and not irrational. Hobit (talk) 10:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: can somebody give me an example of the broken image description using that template? At the moment I doubt that such a merge couldn't be done because of technical reasons. mabdul 13:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  an IP editor provided this example. basically, wiki-markup fails in image captions, as pointed out by Edokter, but HTML does work. the 'unbulleted list' template doesn't use wiki-markup, but generates HTML directly, so it works, while plainlist does not. one can make 'unbulleted list' generate the exact same HTML markup as plainlist just by adding 'class=plainlist' to that template, but there is no way to fix the 'plainlist template', unless that 'bug' is fixed. Frietjes (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. mabdul 10:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to Keep. mabdul 10:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

I closed this as "delete" two years ago, and there have been two DRV's since then. Now a user has brought up a source on my talk page, which may be considered significant coverage. See what you guys think of it. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The Wired article would be persuasive if it we could accept it as
  WP:RELIABLE. But it's not. It appears to be a blog post, not something that was subjected to the kind of editorial review our guidelines require. (Btw, I applaud your integrity in DRV'ing your own close when a question arises. Good on ya!) Msnicki (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • A lot of times "blogs" on newspaper sites have editorial control. IF there is a disclaimer saying that the "blog" was user-generated and that the newspaper is not responsible for the content, then treat it as unreliable. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/01/nerdtrivia-twitter-game/ - the author has a wiredmag.com e-mail, so she's an employee.
  • It also says "Angela is a reporter for the Underwire, Wired.com's pop culture blog. She is also a senior editor of Longshot magazine and a contributor to Pop-Up Magazine. "
  • That means it's an RS.
  • WhisperToMe (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see it in quite so much black and white as Msnicki. Yes, it's a blog, and I wouldn't see that as a reliable source myself, but Angela Watercutter is a staff writer and an editor of another magazine so there's a prima facie arguable case. I think it could be worth incubating and seeing what the user can come up with, on the understanding that the finished draft still has to pass scrutiny at DRV before it can be moved to mainspace. I don't feel very strongly about it so let's call that weak incubate.—S Marshall T/C 22:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not correct. Any user may recreate any deleted article at any time, if they believe in good faith that they have remedied the deficiencies. A prerequisite DRV is only invoked in cases of repeated recreations without consensus. Jclemens (talk) 02:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last DRV was closed as creation not permitted so I'm seeing that as requiring permission from DRV to come back.
      Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Endorse - A magazine's blog that is more about the nerd game thing than the girl herself is a bit underwhelming. I find this scrimping and scraping to get some video gamer personality an article...what is this,. 3 tries now?...to be a bit irksome, honestly. Tarc (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Recreate.
  WP:NEWSBLOG. Jclemens (talk) 02:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Allow recreation and relist as desired Non-trivial source added that certainly helps with WP:N, so not a G4. Not clear it's enough though, so no objection to a relist at AfD. Hobit (talk) 10:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Even if we were generous and described this as a reliable source, it is pretty much primary, references software as much as the subject and lacks sufficient depth to allow a BLP to be created around it. I guess hot geek girl working for M$ is an assertion of notability for many users but this source falls way short of meeting the GNG/BIO standard.
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • How is this a primary source or not reliable? It covers the software and was written by a professional in the field [1]. Further for authors, we generally accept reviews of their books as notability for them. Same with bands. How is software different? Hobit (talk) 12:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of the content in connection to her appears to be an interview.
      Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Most coverage of authors and the like consists of interviews. If a reliable source covers someone, as an interview or otherwise, it's not a primary source I shouldn't think. Hobit (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, oppose recreation. I accept the source as reliable enough, but as the basis of a biography of a living person it's not substantial enough on its own. It mostly covers her service and conveys almost no information about her.  Sandstein  18:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Closed improperly by a non-admin,

• Endorse. Even when the arguments are weighed, and many are quite weak, there is no consensus for deletion, and probably a rough consensus to keep. Given our current, IMO overly restrictive, standards this may have been a poor candidate for a NAC but you can mentally substitute my signature for Armbrust's if you consider that a problem. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The deletion concern was over a lack of
  non-admin closure. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 21:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note:
  WP:NAC is an essay; none of its suggestions has the status of requirements; and admins have no more authority than other users in such cases. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Okay, but

WP:NAC is the authority cited in the close. If that's not supposed to apply, why cite it? Better question: if that "essay" is all wrong and some of you know what it should say (obviously, I don't), could one of you fix it, please? Like most folks, I'm just trying to do the right thing, but it helps to have the right information. Msnicki (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

That wasn't his choice. It's there because the

creepy and I would oppose any attempt to promote it. I don't want to see non-admin AFD closers dragged to DRV because they closed an AFD with one drive-by "per nom" delete !vote or 20 minutes early.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse, per Eluchil404, and I want to add that administrators do not have a monopoly on judging consensus on Wikipedia. They're janitors, not authority figures. While most of our administrators are sincere and well-meaning, their numbers include self-confessed drug users and quite a few children, and I see no reason to trust an administrator's judgment more highly than I would any other established user.—S Marshall T/C 22:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the "Keep" decision for the Elana Amsterdam article, per the sources I added to the article and numerous "keep" votes per those sources. One editor even struck out their delete vote and changed it to "keep" after the sources were introduced. Hopefully the user that improperly closed the AfD (due to delete !votes and discussion occurring) won't continue to do so, as it is monotonous to have to re-do AfD discussions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northamerica1000 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 10 January 2012‎
• Endorse Might not have been the best discussion for an NAC, but the closer weighed consensus correctly, and I think that's what counts here. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse a keep. While incomplete, the article seem like a good stub. Bearian (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse'. In my NAC days, I would give pause before closing AFDs like this one where the nom was actively trying to impeach "keep" !votes but I might have closed this one after reading the nom's last comment where he said Okay, apparently the consensus is going heavily toward keep. The keeps weren't the strongest I've seen but it's unlikely that any admin would have closed this any other way. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I took part in the discussion and argued (I hate using the word "Vote" in AfDs) for a keep. I was little surprised that it ended with a NAC but the argument was heading very clearly for a keep. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]