Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 April 25

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 2016 April 24
2016 April 26 >

25 April 2016

  • Cryptic 05:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Quietscheentchen (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
We have a rather ridiculous situation here: an editor is getting a bit too bureaucratic about a redirect which was deleted and subsequently restored. 76.65.41.126 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), this is a waste of time.

In short, I suppose that the straight-up recount of the vote at the RfD was correct, but a closer look reveals the arguments as flawed--I couldn't argue that myself since I was never notified by Gorobay. I have laid out my arguments at Talk:Quietscheentchen, a few months ago, and there is little need to repeat them; in summary: it was a German topic, if that applies to redirects; it's a fairly relevant search terms given that it's also the title of one of Ernie's hits (in Germany); one editor argues it's not even a Dutch or German word, an argument immediately belied by the dictionary.

The way I see it, we have two options (if you find my arguments on the talk page convincing): we overturn the original deletion, without finding fault with the closing admin (BDD) who made a good-faith decision based on some lousy arguments, and restore what might be deleted shortly as G4. Or, better yet, we allow that a redirect can be recreated (maybe if an argument for such recreation is provided) if it's done in good faith. The funny thing is that DRV is really a stretch for me and the whole thing kind of a Catch 22, since, as I said, the close was right though based on the wrong arguments, and thus we could have the right decision leading to a wrong decision--the lack of a redirect for the German (notable) term for rubber ducky. Or someone could just decide that this isn't a big deal, and tell the IP so. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. Drmies are you arguing for the redirect restoration or for the actual song to become an article? I shouldn't have to tell you that a YouTube video of Ernie singing a song translated into German isn't really sufficient for a new article. Otherwise, I don't see any reason other that wasn't already discussed in the prior RFC on the matter. While you weren't notified, I don't see anything particularly new you provide. Is this literally just the German word for rubber duck? There's no mention of it in the article so I don't know why a redirect is appropriate. Pages like Amigo don't just redirect to the English language translation but look for the actual usage of the word. There's no other foreign language redirects to rubber duck either. I could support a relisting and we can discuss this again but I'm not seeing why we should create a bunch of redirects for every translation of every word (or in particular why for this term). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:FIRST and there counter all the arguments that I believe were faulty to begin with, like that rather nonsensical comment that this wasn't a German word? Or should I write an article (yes!), wait for it to be nominated for deletion, and then propose a "merge and redirect but I'll settle for delete and redirect since redirects are cheap and hope that none of you catch on? I can try that, if you like. Hell, you know what crap we run into that gets to stay here one way or another.

      Or, in yet another way, I don't want to be here at DR at all; I want to trout the person who didn't notify me, the folks who brought up obviously erroneous arguments, and the IP who thinks they got someone on a clever technicality. :) Drmies (talk) 04:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

      ]

Quietscheentchen
  • Endorse. The closure reflects consensus in the discussion. This is not the forum for a new discussion on the merits. Nonetheless: "Quietscheentchen" literally translates to "squeaking little duck", and it is the German term for these little floating rubber ducks (pictured, right). I don't get the point of creating a redirect here; we don't usually create redirects for non-English translations of an article title. If the German term were independently notable, e.g. as a song title, that could be grounds for an article, but that does not seem to be the case here.  Sandstein  09:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. DRV discusses whether the debate was closed correctly and is not a place to re-argue the discussion. Stifle (talk) 10:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ick There really is no valid reason for deletion here. WP:RFOREIGN is the most on-point but A) it is an essay and B) it is an essay that we regularly ignore (I mean a lot). But at the same time, there is no clear reason to keep it, so we are at the point where there is no policy-based guidance that I'm aware of, so closing based on numbers is reasonable. At the same time, baring BLP issues and the like, I really don't understand the need to delete redirects. Hobit (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Net effect no basis to overturn. Hobit (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:RFD#HOWTO says it's good practice to speak to the redirect creator before deleting the redirect. This was not done, so Drmies was robbed of the opportunity to defend the redirect; a minor procedural flaw. Si Trew's contribution to the debate is a mild lapse of his usually higher standards, implying that this is a nonsense or made up word; Wikipedia contains a number of German speakers, including for example, yanno, the person who actually created the redirect but wasn't told, who could easily have verified for him that this is good German. (Personally I learned it in school for a German A-level around 1988, and although I do actively use my German, including translating articles from de.wiki to here, I've never actually needed that particular word until today.) Does this add up to a big enough procedural flaw to overturn the RfD? I dunno --- when it's a failure to follow "good practice" it could go either way --- but personally I'd say that a relist would do no harm and would give confidence that we're following that FairProcess that I often mention in connection with DRV.—S Marshall T/C 18:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Endorse I don't see why people are using the argument "RFOREIGN is an essay" here. Yes it is an essay, but it's just elaborating on a point of
    日本映画プロフェッショナル大賞 is redirected to Japanese Professional Movie Awards, as the subject of that article clearly has a close connection to Japanese-speaking culture. Not notifying the nominator was a procedural error, but overturning a discussion on that basis alone smacks of bureaucratic pettiness. Hut 8.5 21:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Relist per reasonable arguments of a faulty discussion, noting that a relist will do no harm. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know what, I withdraw this, though I appreciate SmokeyJoe and S Marshall's support. This is not worth our time and the world's electrons. Drmies (talk) 05:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pity, I was just getting interested. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quietscheentchen is telling me that it is German, for "Rubber Ducky", I guess according to loose language rules (that might be an oxymoron in German, but nevertheless). As such, the RfD looks quite confusing, confused, self-contradictory even. And google clearly shows it is a term in use. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • WP:AFC. I get the impression that most would prefer that this be done by somebody else than the nominator, who is still new to Wikipedia's collaborative approach. –  Sandstein  10:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
UFC 157 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article "UFC 157" should be reinstated based on the criteria that the closer of the deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly. Nearly every argument for the article is valid, while the responses are invalid and biased towards deleting the article for no legitimate reason at all. Please reinstate "UFC 157."

talk) 08:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

talk) 01:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you Ricky for your help.
talk) 06:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
So what do I do?
talk) 01:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Until the DRV is closed, nothing.—Kww(talk) 01:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is the DRV?
talk) 01:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
This discussion is the DRV: Deletion Review.—Kww(talk) 01:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
talk) 01:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
In about a week.—Kww(talk) 03:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation per Rricky81682. That's it exactly. Hobit (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close as allow recreation. Obviously DRV will not enforce a three-and-a-half-year-old discussion about an event which has, in the meantime, actually taken place. Why do we need to drag this out for 168 hours?—S Marshall T/C 18:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying there is a good chance that UFC 157 will have its own article soon?
talk) 03:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Hopefully not. He's misapplying DRV, so hopefully any closer will ignore him. The original close hasn't been invalidated by subsequent events.—Kww(talk) 03:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully it will. Why did you delete the UFC 157 page in the first place?
talk) 03:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep deleted. Nominator is clearly not someone we can work with. He badgers incessantly and doesn't listen.—S Marshall T/C 15:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can leave if you want.
talk) 21:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
If someone wants to make an article about every football game played every Saturday, then they can do that, no one is stopping them. Anyone can make articles about anything they want.
talk) 01:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
And, when they fail
WP:NEVENT, they get deleted, meaning that creating them is simply a waste of everyone's time.—Kww(talk) 01:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
UFC 157 is a notable event though.
talk) 01:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
By what measure? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was headlined by Ronda Rousey. Billions of people know who she is.
talk) 02:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Evidence of Wikipedia-notability comes from independent others commenting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Independent others commented on the deletion discussion page. How is that not enough evidence?
talk) 02:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
talk) 04:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
As for my opinion not counting, Theepicwarrior, the way DRV works is than unless someone provides evidence that my original close was invalid or no longer applies, the deletion remains in force. No one has provided any evidence of either of those things at this point.—Kww(talk) 04:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What was the reason for your original close?
talk) 04:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I assume that you read it before challenging it here, didn't you?—Kww(talk) 04:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did read it. You have no legitimate evidence at all to support your claim.
talk) 04:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I haven't seen any evidence that coverage on the topic of any UFC numbered event goes beyond routine coverage, including UFC 157. Coverage on Rousey or the individual Rousey match probably went beyond routine, but not coverage on this individual numbered collection of bouts. One way or the other, if people want to claim that coverage in reliable and independent sources on UFC 157 as a topic was unusual in scope, it's the challengers' obligation to provide the evidence and the explanation as to how
WP:NEVENT no longer indicates that the article should not exist. There's no fault with the original close, and no evidence that all three arguments upheld in the close are no longer valid.—Kww(talk) 04:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
http://espn.go.com/mma/story/_/id/8960170/ronda-rousey-defends-title-ufc-debut Here is the evidence. Now please open UFC 157.
talk) 05:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
As a note, I hope that people challenging the
WP:NEVENT logic can see the fallacy of claiming that each and every UFC event exceeds the typical coverage of a UFC event.—Kww(talk) 04:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
http://espn.go.com/mma/story/_/id/8960170/ronda-rousey-defends-title-ufc-debut Here is the evidence. Now please open UFC 157.
talk) 05:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
What do you mean by "routine coverage"?
talk) 05:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:ROUTINE coverage is coverage that exists at the time itself. The fact that there's press available from that time about UFC 157 isn't as important as asking whether there is sources today that discuss UFC 157. Also, needless begging doesn't help your cause. Be patient. At the very least, do more than spout one source after one source at all and look like you spent at least a half hour taking this seriously. --Ricky81682 (talk) 05:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I am taking this seriously. That is why I created this in the first place.
talk) 06:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
No, it is more likely to help my cause. In order to get this done, you have to be relentless.
talk) 06:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Please listen to Hobit. It really isn't likely to help your cause. Kww is trying to make DRV enforce a three-and-a-half-year-old consensus. We don't do that, and have consistently refused to do it every time it's come up, because consensus can change. So the article's going to be restored if you behave like someone we can work with; but at the moment you're not.—S Marshall T/C 07:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relax Marshall. I am the one who started this, you are technically working with me, and this is going to get done.
talk) 08:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I think you need to relax. It's entirely possible for this to be rejected or for the support to be that you have to create a new draft which will not likely be put into mainspace if, again, you aren't working on this the way that's being ask of you. I suggest that, rather than stay here and debate this further, go look for actual sources and perhaps just build a subpage in your userspace (ask me on my talk page if you need help) and collect all these sources we cite here and all the quotes and go look for more like that. That is presuming your actual goal here is to create a good article on the subject and it's not just a "I'm a fan and I want an article on UFC 157 that says what I want" because the truth here is, I highly doubt anyone in this discussion knows a lick about the UFC or particularly cares. We care about good articles that discuss their subjects in a neutral and informative matter. Go look over the other UFC match articles and focus on ones that don't just have the match information but actual intelligent discussion that non-MMA fans would find interesting. This event itself is interesting to more than MMA fans if it's worked on that way. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation. Here is a 2015 book source about the 2013 event that demonstrates UFC 157 is a significant event and passes
    ISBN 1633194442. Retrieved 2016-04-26.

    The book notes:

    Rousey's UFC debut was a big moment in mixed martial arts history. There was a lot of speculation about this "experiment" known as women's MMA. Even White himself was skeptical that there would be enough talent in the division, and he made sure that there was a compelling line-up of fights leading up to the main event of UFC 157 on February 23, 2013, which featured Rousey, the newly minted UFC bantamweight champion, against former US Marine, Liz Carmouche.

    The main card featured legends like Urijah Faber, Dan Henderson, Lyoto Machida, and future welterweight champion Robbie Lawler.

    There were some 15,525 tickets sold for a live gate of $1.4 million, and a reported 500,000 pay-per-view sales.

    Carmouche took Rousey's back early in the fight and, while Ronda stood up in the middle of the cage, began looking for a rear-naked choke. Ronda kept her chin tucked so Carmouche switched to a nasty neck crank. This is a very painful move, and coming from a former Marine it could not have felt very good.

    Ronda said she felt her jaw dislocate, and her teeth were digging in into the back of her lips. Liz was pulling on Ronda's neck so hard she could have broken it. Rousey, however, kept her cool. She remembered to stay in the middle of the cage, so that Liz couldn't rest her back against the fence while on Rousey's back, and she worked to get Carmouche's legs apart. When she did, she slipped Carmouche off her back and went on to win the match with a series of ground-and-pound blows and then, of course, the armbar.

    • Cunard (talk) 06:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Cunard for your help.
talk) 06:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
That looks like fairly typical coverage that can be located for UFC 1-156 and UFC 158-infinity. In what way is it substantially different? Note that the article under discussion is not about Carmouche, Rousey, or their fight, but the collection of events known as "UFC 157".—Kww(talk) 14:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you defending the discussion or are you just advocating for its deletion? Consensus can change. The fact that the all the UFC articles now have their own separate articles and aren't redirects shows that a new consensus has formulated about UFC matches, including UFC 199 and UFC 200 which haven't happened yet. If you want, nominate the remaining ones for deletion that had the same concerns but I'm certain people aren't going to take this 2012 discussion as current consensus. It's been over three years since the last discussion and two since the last DRV on the matter. At the same time, the express concerns from the prior AFD, namely whether there would be notability about it after the event occurred, seems to have happened. Now it seems to largely be about both the women's bout itself and in part due to Rousy's fame following the match but that doesn't mean the event itself wasn't notable. If you are saying "recreate it but I may express an opinion that it should be just about the match and not the UFC title, which is not in my admin closing responsibility but just an opinion", that's also fine. But articles on films are created sometimes after the fact which are notable in part because one actor in the film became famous later, no one demands that the article be about the person's role or else the article be deleted. If you were saying "I closed it properly but it's been three years, people are providing new sources, let's open it up to a new draft", that's one matter but "I closed it properly in 2012, and even though some of the concerns expressed then have actual evidence now, it must still be a redirect", that's just strange. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The logic used still seems valid to me today, and that people finally gave up keeping the MMA project in line with notability standards doesn't seem like an argument for undoing it. As I said elsewhere in this discussion (and in the close), I think your argument is using inherited notability, essentially "because the Rousey match is notable, the entire collection of events that included the Rousey match is also notable."—Kww(talk) 17:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It may be. I'm just concerned about whether to permit recreation first. I think recreation is permissible as the topic I think should be split off from 2013 in UFC at this point. From whether the match itself or the UFC event as a whole should be the article, I think at the very least there's enough to split something off and I'd prefer to split the UFC match off and then debate it there whether the match itself is notable. There's no reason it can't be recreated, and taken to AFD today (or any other MMA-related item). From there, the AFD can be used to "[keep] the MMA in line with notability standards" as you would like it to be. Believe me, I spent a good amount of time hacking at the WOP crowd and that's had a decade of Arbcom mandates to work against. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article UFC 157 should be about the collection of events known as "UFC 157" with a heavy emphasis about the main fight between Carmouche and Rousey. This draft mentioned by Ricky81682 at 08:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC) was about the collection of events. Cunard (talk) 07:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation per Cunard. Not immediately, Theepicwarrior is still getting up to speed, but allow testing at AfD at any time as per normal. The WP:CRYSTAL thing has changed since the AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean?
talk) 06:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I mean Cunard has come up with a good source. However, others may disagree that it is enough, and if so the place for that discussion is a fresh AfD, although I recommend using the article talk page, when this DRV discussion is closed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You mean this page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2013_in_UFC#UFC_157
talk) 07:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes. If the consensus of this DRV discussion is to undelete the article, specific points relating to the article are best discussed on its talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks.
talk) 08:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
How does UFC 3 have its own article but UFC 157 does not? UFC 3 had 90,000 pay-per-view buys with 3,000 in attendance. UFC 157 had 450,000 pay-per-view buys with over 13,000 in attendance. UFC 157 is more notable than UFC 3, yet UFC 3 has its own article and UFC 157 does not. How hypocritical. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFC_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_in_UFC#UFC_157:_Rousey_vs._Carmouche
talk) 22:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Okay.
talk) 08:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you for taking the time to support this. Greatly appreciated.
talk) 03:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
How is there no hope of disentangling them?
talk) 06:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016_April_25&oldid=1077828181"