Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 January 18#Perfumedly

:{{DRV links|Perfumedly|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_6#Perfumingly|article=}}

In a somewhat unusual move, I'm requesting the wider community to scrutinise my own RfD closure by raising a DRV, after Legacypac discussed the matter with me.

The RfD concerns two redirects from obscure words to a common word from which they're derived: Perfumedly, Perfumingly → Perfume. A slight complication was that these redirects were created by Neelix, which is an area subject to much ANI discussion in recent months. The head count was 7:3 towards delete with solid arguments on both sides. I closed it as "no consensus, default to keep" as I don't think there's sufficient consensus to delete; Legacypac disagrees. I think the main arguments have already been threshed out and we agree that relisting at RfD again will likely generate a similar ratio of head count.

So my question for the DRV community is, that at what level of majority or argument strength do we move from no consensus to action? Deryck C. 22:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support delete aka Overturn and delete in my observations processing literally thousands of Neelix redirects we delete with a simple majority, absent one side having vastly stronger arguments or compelling new info need the end of the RfD. Neelix created thousands of useless redirects (and others) from obscuringly or inventedadly wordingishly (there is overlap between these groups because more then one person is likely to invent the same fake word by adding valid suffixes to valid regular words), including in old books. In these two cases the words get under 400 google hits each including all the Wikipedia mirrors, and sites that scrap content from here for anagrams, online dictionaries etc. Wikipedia is so powerful that if we create a redirect from duckinglyish => Swanidly within a few months searchs will show several hundred results of my new words defined as I wrote them. Therefore we do a big disservice to allow fake words here. Legacypac (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse closure - I believe that your close was reasonable and well within discretion, which it was necessary and appropriate to exercise in an unusual case such as this. The "because Neelix" argument really doesn't count for much in the face of any opposition. That leaves similar numeric support on each side, and really not much in the way of conclusive policy argument anywhere to be found. I would (hypothetically) have closed this in the same way (though I would have !voted to delete). Thparkth (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• I might have closed Delete. The first keep was essentially saying that this is a valid, though archaic word, and the second Keep was a per-x. Seems to me that being a valid word is more of an inclusion criteria for Wiktionary and not Wikipedia. Redirects are cheap, of course, and this one does no harm even if hardly useful, but policy-wise the arguments for delete in this case (discounting "because Neelix") were more convincing. (IANAA, btw). Crow^Caw 23:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Overturn to delete or alternatively relist. Until reading this discussion I would have tended to "meh, no consensus is defensible, what difference does it make?", but Legacypac makes a concerning point that the very existence of redirects from non-words or obscure words may tend to propagate them. This is a well-known effect when Wikipedia contains errors (inadvertent or otherwise) and I can see how it would be a problem in this context as well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse as well within administrative closing discretion. NYB's point might have some validity, but a GBooks search shows that this is not a "non-word", but a relatively archaic usage. I don't see what the problem is with Wikipedia propagating "obscure" information would be; an encyclopedia limited only to the commonly known is pretty useless. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse though I'd have endorsed deletion (though with less enthusiasm) also. I think policy-wise this leans toward keeping due to the redirect being old (2009) (which is important at RfD) and the word being an actual (if old) word. And honestly, I don't think this hurts anything. Plus some of the !votes to delete were fairly weak. Eh, within admin discretion and I think the right call. Hobit (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse In the real world I would feel 7:3 or 2:1 isn't a rough consensus - it's a lack of it. But maybe wikiworld is different. Two of the deletes merely name-dropped and were of slight value. But then I wouldn't have complained about a delete close - it was only a redirect after all. Thincat (talk) 08:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete in line with the consensus at the debate. Stifle (talk) 09:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. There was consensus at the discussion to do so. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 15:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse close - Deryck could not have read this more correctly; "because Neelix" is indeed not a deletion rationale. We created a temporary exception to G6-delete any redirect created by Neelix which was clearly unacceptable by admin discretion, but these were clearly not that as soon as one user endorsed them; the closer acknowledged this. Subsequently, any !vote which amounted to "because Neelix" is equivalent to WP:IDLI and must be discounted. That knocks the straw tally down to 4:3 favouring delete, but throw mine out too because it's admittedly pointy gibberish, and the remaining keep !votes are much stronger (though I disagree entirely). If we learn anything from this discussion, it's to give proper arguments in deletion discussions. For future cases like this (let's hope there aren't many left) perhaps we can recommend that a discussion closing this way be relisted one more time, with a note reminding commenters that "because Neelix" is invalid; there are much better policy-based reasons that we should delete these (see Newyorkbrad's comment). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn to delete. normally its not worth debating a non-consensus close, because one can always bring another XfD to try to obtain better consensus, but in this case a appropriate question has been asked about deletion policy in closing, which is specifically the job of Deletion Review . My repsonse to that question is:

:It is not a matter of head count, Relying primarily on head count is in most situations the wrong way to close XfDs. There are times to take it into account: for example, when one closes in favor of a clear minority position, for then one needs to explain why. Or when one closes on the basis of it is clear what most people think when it is a matter of judgment (such as whether a key reference is sufficiently independent) rather than policy. In this case there were two proposed contrasting guidelines: whether he make redirects from every documented word to the closest WP article, or whether we only make them for plausible searches. The guideline we actually follow is I think well established: it's to plausible searches, and almost all RfDs have been closed on that basis. (in contrast, the question of whether something is sufficiently plausible is a matter of judgment, & the apparent level of plausibility required at RfD has often varied.) There can of course be exceptions,but for an exception there needs to be clear consensus to use it. There was not such clear consensus here, so the usual guideline applies.

:Furthermore, in a matter where we would decide by vote count, if we were to do so 7-3 is greater than 2/3, and for almost everything, including RfCs, 2/3 is sufficient (when one does use vote count every authorized voter counts, even if their reason is wrong). RfAs have a discretionary range, not an absolute count, The only matter I know of where a precise higher figure is given is for changing Arbitration policy, which--in my opinion absurdly--requires 80%. DGG ( talk ) 20:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

::: Since I usually agree with {{u|DGG}}, I'll add a slight caution on this occasion. He says "There was not such clear consensus here [to keep], so the usual [well established] guideline applies [that the redirect should be plausible]." My understanding is that we need a consensus to delete. If there is no such consensus we do not delete, even if there is not a consensus to keep. Of course, the opinions are considered in the light of whether they are policy or guideline based but people should have their opinions respected if they give a cogent justification, even if they are going against a guideline. However, the root problem at this RFD was that some people gave wholly or partially irrelevant or flippant arguments (probably because they regarded the result as self-evident). It is obvious that they could have given reasoned arguments but they did not. I also would have voted "delete" but I did not take part at all so my opinion was also rightly disregarded. Thincat (talk) 13:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

::::::I saw it rather as a question that "There is so such guideline here [to use the general policy for redirects],... ". Using a different guideline is what requires a clear consensus. It's also the case that a decision to delete requires a consensus (less than a clear consensus, which is a stronger term in an undefined way). These are 2 different ways of looking at it, which give the same result. DGG ( talk ) 16:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

:::::::It's not always the case that explicit consensus to delete is required to delete redirects. There was a discussion recently where several users opined that a certain redirect wasn't correct, but could not agree on what action would improve the situation; the result was that the redirect was deleted even though nobody had suggested deletion in the discussion. It's also stated in a guideline somewhere that redirect discussions which don't have any comments routinely result in deletion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

::::::::I'm not too familiar with RFD specifically so I don't know about deletion policies and practices that are specific to redirects. I do agree, however, that deleting a redirect if in some doubt could sometimes be a reasonable thing to do. Thincat (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse it was established that this word is or was actually used, so the argument that this is purely a word invented by Neelix has no validity. At that point it becomes a matter of judgement over whether the word is a plausible search term, and opinion was divided on the subject. Yes, there were seven delete !votes to three keep !votes, but four of those delete !votes merely asserted that the word was nonsense or only exists as a Neelix invention, which is demonstrably untrue. Only three of them argued that it was an implausible search term. To answer DGG, strength of argument becomes less important the more people participate in a discussion. RfAs routinely get over 100 people taking part, few deletion discussions get anything like that many. Hut 8.5 20:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

::Hut 8.5 I think you need to look again. In my nomination I said "Very rare or non words set up by Neelix" This was part of a string of such nominations of exactly that. I specify Neelix as the creator because that makes them G6 Housekeeping eligible, not because him creating them is a reason to delete on its own (no one has advanced this as a reason to delete anything, in spite of what some editors claim).

::Before I nominate words from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anomie/Neelix_list I search the meanings and evaluate the usefulness. Here I found a few hits - notability one in a poem quoted a few times in various books and websites which I chalked up to poetic license with words, [https://books.google.ca/books?id=xJhAAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=Perfumingly&source=bl&ots=Nc7E364jk8&sig=fA3JC8OeWR3hjrxm1LdNo3_F7Fc&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Perfumingly&f=false] When reviewing redirects my rule of thumb is to RfD any word or phrase like this with under 400 Google hits, barring some other good reason to keep.

::The sequence of the votes is important too. The first two keeps were the second and third votes. Then 5 users voted Delete even after reading the Keep rational. Everyone in the discussion including my nomination agreed the words are "very rare". It is frustrating to have votes tossed because of a faulty assessment of the reason for the nomination.

::Following Hut's logic (to pick on the last vote here out of connivance), his vote is based on "the argument that this is purely a word invented by Neelix has no validity" which was never part of the nomination and is "demonstrably untrue", so his Endorse here can be completely ignored. (sorry to pick on you Hut, just making a point, nothing personal). Most of the delete voters are used to dealing with Neelix created redirects like these that use very rare or invented words and should not be expected to provide a completely explained rational yet again for deleting something that just another exceedingly rare unnecessary redirect. If that is the standard we will never get to the bottom of 50,000 redirects. Legacypac (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

:::The result of an RfD (or any other XfD) doesn't stand or fall with the wording of the nomination. People can cite whatever rationale they like, and the close must take those rationales into account. Here two of the comments said "Neelix gibberish" and "Neelix nonsense", and another likened the term to a long list of obviously made up words. There wasn't any other rationale offered in those comments, that was the only reason given, and Notecardforfree demonstrated that this is not true - the word does exist and it has been used, so whatever it is it is not nonsense. If someone gives a rationale in a deletion discussion which is convincingly rebutted then it is entirely proper - indeed expected - for the closing admin to discard it or give it reduced weight. See the example given in WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS about lack of sources. It doesn't matter whether it was rebutted before or after they made that comment, either way it is rebutted. Discounting these comments we are left with a pretty even split on the main question, and so it was right for the closer to go for No Consensus.

:::I'm afraid I am going to have to ask that people who want a page to be deleted articulate and demonstrate some valid reason why that page should be deleted, or "provide a completely explained rational" as you put it. That is kind of the point of having deletion discussions. Hut 8.5 22:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse closure per Legacypac's points. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
• :Not sure what you mean. The user whose reasons you cite (Legacypac) did not endorse the closure made in this case. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 15:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

::{{re|Rubbish computer}}, could you clarify? -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

:{{ping|Hallward's Ghost}} {{ping|Tavix}} Sorry, I can't even remember what I was thinking when I wrote that. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 00:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Overturn to delete as although I voted Keep, the Delete arguments appear stronger. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 00:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn to delete. I may be biased since I !voted "delete", but even discounting the "because Neelix" votes, I feel the !delete arguments to be stronger. It comes down to WP:NOTDIC (and now that I think about it, WP:R#D8), since we are not a dictionary, we shouldn't have redirects for every possible obscure form of a word. Common and plausible variations are fine (per WP:POFR). On the "keep" side, there was WP:CHEAP (which I always feel is a "cheap" argument, no pun intended) and a couple valid arguments discussing that they felt it to be a plausible search term. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. First of all, whomever closes this discussion should keep in mind that that WP:DRV is not a forum to re-litigate the underlying reasons for why this redirect should or should not be deleted ({{tq|"Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question"}}). Rather, we are here to talk about whether the individual who closed the RfD followed proper procedures. Here, Deryck C. found that there was not sufficient consensus to dismiss, but now asks whether the numeric disparity among votes compels a different result. However, WP:CON states that consensus should never be judged based on a vote (see also WP:VOTE); consensus is determined by taking all perspectives into account. In this RfD, the keep votes cited legitimate, policy-based concerns, which Deryck C. found to be not substantially weaker arguments than the delete votes. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Both sides have made valid arguments. Clearly there is no consensus to delete. sst✈ 02:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, because one you take out the arguments that are not based in policy, it's pretty much 50-50 with no wholly convincing argument that knocks the thing out of the ground. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC).

:{{DRV links|Korean eyes|xfd_page=|article=}}

:I originally had created an article on myths on eyelids. It got deleted. I feel incensed. My article was legitimately referenced, it talked about notable topics that are existing covered topics, the arguments for deletion were lies. But since you keep on insisting your bullshits anyway, forget the myth part but focus on the Korean eyes part. I had created a new article on Korean eyes without the myth part, but it got deleted because I had talked about Korean eyes while talking about the myths (which got deleted). How is this fair? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_eyes

Wikibreaking (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

::Here is the content.

Wikibreaking (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

:There is a claim that the term Mongoloid refers to only Mongolian, Eskimo Siberian, etc. (Such that "Chinese isn't Mongoloid".) Unlike such claim, the definition differs. The term refers to the yellow people in general. Also, Uralic, Turkic, Altaic blood is little in Mongolian. That blood (Y-haplogroup N) is genetically different from Eskimo Siberian (Y-haplogroup C). Quoting from "The Earth and Its Inhabitants" by Elisee Reclus, "The national type seems to have been best preserved amongst the Khalkhas, who also claim a certain superiority over the other branches on the ground that amongst them are the families of the Taitsi, descendants of Jenghiz Khan. Yet the Khalkha least resembles the typical Mongol type, as described by most ethnologists. He is rather brown than yellow, with open eyes, not inclined obliquely, like those of the Chinese or Ostiaks." [https://books.google.com/books?id=jCxPAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA105 Elisee Reclus's "The Earth and Its Inhabitants" on Khalkhas] One of the Mongoloid traits is small mono-eyelids like Chinese, Ostiaks, Eskimo Siberians, but Khalkhas differ from such types.

:Korea historically has been perceived as the mixture of the East Asian aboriginals & Altaic nomads (like Khalkhas) from Central Asia. This nomadic group is recorded to have settled in North Korea which included Southern Manchuria in the ancient Kochosun time but not South Korea. North Korea is perceived to be closer to the cold northern nomads than South Korea. Quoting from "Korea and the Sacred White Mountain" by Alfred Edward John Cavendish, "the Northern Koreans are not the same race, I am certain, as the Southern, for they are not the same idle, good-for-nothing set, but, on the contrary, are as hard-working and industrious as possible. Besides this, from Kap-san to the northern border the natives have long features, with aquiline noses, and the almond-shaped eye and high cheek-bone so noticeable in Korea farther south, are almost entirely absent; as might be expected, the dialect differs also in a marked degree." [https://books.google.com/books?id=pZ6CAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA180 Northern Korean & Southern Korean facial differences] Aquiline nose means Roman nose; it refers to Southern Europe & the Middle East.

:Korea's folded double-eyelids have been described numerously by several 19th century references. Quoting from Corea by Arnold Henry Savage, "If you take the royal family of Corea, for instance, you will find that king and queen, and all the royal princes, especially on the queen's side (the Min family), are as white as any Caucasian, and that their eyes are hardly slanting at all, and in some cases are quite as straight as ours [Caucasians]. Members of some of the nobler families also might be taken for Europeans. Of course the middle classes are of the Mongolian type." [https://books.google.com/books?id=Ymu8BQAAQBAJ&pg=PA46 Korean double-eyelids] A particular famous Royal member is prince Wu Lee who made portraits & photos with clearly folded double-eyelids on both eyes.

:The term straight or open has been used many times for folded double-eyelids. Quoting from "The Earth and Its Inhabitants" by Elisee Reclus, "others group the Ainos with the Kamchadales, Koriaks, Aleutians, and some other northern peoples in a separate division of mankind, while they are by others regarded as a branch of the Eskimo or of the Polynesians, or even of the Western "Caucasic" stock. Certainly the ordinary Aino type differs greatly from the Japanese. The complexion is lighter, the forehead broader and higher, the cranial capacity vastly superior, the nose more prominent, the eyes larger, more open and perfectly straight, like those of Europeans." [https://books.google.com/books?id=jCxPAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA397 the term straight for double-eyelids 1]

:Here is another example of the ethnologic usage of that word from the same book by Elisee Reclus, "the inhabitants of the Lu-chu Archipelago form a transition between the "Polynesian" type of Japan and the almost Malay features of the Formosans. The eyes are nearly straight, the complexion of a somewhat olive tint, the beard fuller than either of the Japanese or Chinese".[https://books.google.com/books?id=jCxPAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA402 the term straight for double-eyelids 2]

Wikibreaking (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

{{reflist talk}}

::It is an existing covered topic (obviously because many books talk about it); it is properly referenced (used like 5 Google books on Ethnology); all I did was stating the quotes pretty much. This article should be posted back up. The myth part should also be reviewed again because it was not properly deleted (false claims were made in notability & references), but get the Korean eyes part straight first.Wikibreaking (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

{{od}}I most recently deleted the article, but as a G4 ( a recreation of a previously deleted article). I don't have an opinion on whether the prior deletion was proper, simply that the latest version appears substantially similar to the deleted version.

Original AfD--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

:Why is this still not processed? Can we have a discussion or something going on?Wikibreaking (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment This article was a content fork of a previously deleted article, see the deletion log for this article. This is also being discussed on yesterday's DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 January 17. Crow^Caw 21:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

:::I am saying 2 separate things here. 1. That previously deleted article on the myths was wrongfully deleted. 2. Irrelevant of that previously deleted article, whether this content was *also* mentioned in that previously deleted article or not, it should be irrelevant. For example, if an article on US presidency got deleted while including the mention of Obama, then should an article on Obama himself be also deleted just because it was mentioned in that deleted article? I see no logic in this. So, I am trying to set straight how this article (specifically on Korean eyes) is legitimate & shouldn't be deleted. Then, I am going to resubmit petition on the previously deleted article (I am separating that article into 2) because it shouldn't have been deleted in the first place.Wikibreaking (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

::::How come this is still not being processed? A later petition was processed, but this is still not touched.Wikibreaking (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)