Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 December 18
=[[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 December 18|18 December 2019]]=
class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" |
style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" |
|
---|
style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
:{{DRV links|Portal:Weather|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Weather|article=}} I'm not gonna lie, I'm pretty miffed about this. I am the primary (only) maintainer of this portal. I have put a lot of effort over the years into making this a low-maintenance, sustainable portal that can be incrementally updated. This is precisely *why* there are so many subpages, since I've put a lot of care into ensuring that there will always be relevant and randomized, fresh content based on the current date, and there will never be broken links. I've made hundreds of edits this year alone, not just in the "on this day" section but also in the "did you know" section and adding a new featured picture. This is all the result of hundreds or maybe even thousands of hours of effort over more than a decade, searching for relevant weather events from a given date, and adding them to the "on this day" section so that they appear around the appropriate anniversary. Many of the "delete" comments seem to have lazily just looked at the history of the main portal page, seen very few edits, and thrown up their hands and said "Well, no one's working on it, get rid of it!". If they had actually done some digging and seen the history of transcluded pages, they would have seen that yes, this portal has been heavily maintained over the years. Why is this even a proper rationale for deletion anyway?? Even if it were true, no one is even addressing the merits of the content as it exists (or rather, existed I guess). If the Portal really needed to go so badly, why did no one think to remove it from the literal thousands of pages that still link to it? Most annoying of all, I was not notified about this deletion discussion. When I went in to make some updates today (as I often do), I saw that the entirety of my work had been deleted, without even being able to offer a defense. The closing admin's reasoning is completely incorrect: "There is no argument that this portal is unmaintained and serving inaccurate information to readers." Well, let me give this argument then: I have made hundreds of edits to this portal's subpages in this year alone. If anything, I've updated this Portal more in the past year than in any year since it was first overhauled over a decade ago. The nominator pointed to a single example of inaccurate information that would have been easily corrected, and used that as representative of the entire breadth of pages under the Portal. Why were the first comments pointing to WP:FIXIT ignored?? Do people want more selected articles? I can do that! Do people want a place to report inaccurate information? I can do that! Do people want instructions on how to add their own weather event to the list of 1000+ "On this day" links? I can do that! No one ever asked, so I never thought these were priorities that could lead to the entire portal being deleted out from under me. Please restore all 2100+ pages that I have worked hard on for more than a decade, and maybe next time use a little more discretion and transparency when deleting a huge body of work like this. RunningOnBrains(talk) 19:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC) :For those without admin privileges, [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Runningonbrains/100 this tool] shows the number of pages created (not number of edits, which is higher) by me in the Portal:Weather space. You can see I created more than 200 now-deleted pages in the space in the past year alone.-RunningOnBrains(talk) 20:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
::*{{u|Levivich}} having had a chance to cool my head, I can understand the lack of notification. The opener of discussion did notify the creator of the portal, and the appropriate Wikiproject. My arguments against the conclusions reached still stand, however.-RunningOnBrains(talk) 04:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC) ::An MFD was placed on Portal:Weather on November 17, 2019, at 20:28 by Mark Schierbecker. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC) :::A glance at Special:RelatedChanges would have easily shown that Runningonbrains was maintaining the portal. The argument for deletion here was that the portal wasn't being maintained, it's hardly unreasonable to expect the nominator to check whether anyone is maintaining it. Hut 8.5 23:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC) ::Editors need to think past the letter of the law. When nominating a single article for deletion, standard-level effort at notification is appropriate. When dealing with a collection of 2000 pages, you really need to put in extra effort to make sure everybody who is interested knows about it. In this case, the portal maintainer was off-wiki from 17 November to 18 December; the entire MFD took place during a period when they were not around. What was so important about deleting these 2000 pages that it couldn't wait for them to return? Or, maybe try a little harder to notify them. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC) :::You're presupposing that anybody in that MfD was even aware that there was an editor who was updating some (like 10%? less?) of the 2100 subpages. It's a highly-unlikely circumstance that you have a maintainer who is regularly maintaining the portal, but only a certain part of it and not the main part, and on top of that, the editor is a regular contributor but doesn't log in for the almost-two-weeks that the portal is tagged for MfD. Now, there's absolutely nothing wrong with not logging in for two weeks, nor with maintaining some but not all of a portal. In the past year that I've been rather active in portal deletions, I've never seen this very unique confluence of circumstances: 2100 pages, some being maintained, maintainer not logging in for MfD duration. I bet nobody can name another example like this. That's a one-in-a-million coincidence. Have we ever seen before a portal with that many subpages? I don't think anybody–not the nominator, not !voters, not the closer, and not the maintainer–did anything wrong here. It's just a "perfect storm" of circumstances. – Levivich 16:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC) :::{{u|RoySmith}} not that it matters but as a point of order, I wasn't fully off-wiki during the time of the discussion, I was definitely browsing during this time, so if I received a message I would have seen it.-RunningOnBrains(talk) 01:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
|"I wasn't notified" -- Nowhere do the rules say it was necessary for you to be notified, given that the portal was tagged for twelve days |"The deleters were mistaken; the portal was in fact maintained" -- Mark Schierbecker presented evidence that it was unmaintained, that (assuming I read {{him or her|Mark Schierbecker}} correctly) it described someone who died five years ago as still living. Several users also !voted delete on the basis of the difficult-to-maintain structure, rather than any apparent lack of maintenance. Furthermore, this entire line of argument is claiming the !voters erred, rather than the closer, which is simply not within the scope of deletion review. |"Please don't destroy my hard work" -- This is simply not a valid argument. }} * Pppery * it has begun... 01:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
:::User:Runningonbrains, Can you clarify what was said in the MFD that you think is "completely false"? (Note: "maintenance" means checking and if necessary fixing existing content, not just adding content). Re the "single error": the filer of the MFD did enough to demonstrate that the portal was not being kept up to date. DexDor (talk) 17:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
::{{re|Thincat}} I think you were referring to me regarding the vague keep comments. More specifically, arguments which consist entirely of, Keep WP:SOFIXIT (x2) or Keep per WP:ATD don't give any specific reason why this portal is worth keeping. That's what I was referring to as vague. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC) :::Yes, I took these remarks to be in response to the three claims in the MFD nomination that the portal was not being updated. The responses therefore are saying update the portal. This would be regarded as an entirely satisfactory response to an AFD asking for deletion because the article was not being updated, wouldn't it? (And, by the way, it seems the claims were, at least partially, wrong). Thincat (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
:# Whether consensus has been achieved by determining a "rough consensus" (see below). :# Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants. :# As a general rule, don't close discussions or delete pages whose discussions you've participated in. Let someone else do it. :# When in doubt, don't delete. ::In this case, there was no consensus, common sense was not used, the feelings of the Wikipedians were not respected and benefit of the doubt was not given. I'm going to ensure this is logged as evidence in the Portal case. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
:There are several irrelevant and misleading statements in the comments above - for example, "why did no one think to remove it from ..." as (1) there's no need to remove portal links (in most/all cases links to non-existant portals are not shown) and (2) doing so would (presumably) mean re-adding the links if the portal was re-created (as allowed by the close). :The XFD included statements such as that the 41 selected articles/biographies were created in 2008-2010 and never updated since (even where the subject of a biography had died). Assuming that statement is correct it indicates a lack of maintenance. The OP may have been adding more pages to the portal, but that's expansion not maintenance. A fundamental problem with portals appears to be that editors like to create/expand them, but (unlike with articles) editors don't like to maintain them (especially maintaining parts of a portal created by another editor). :That an editor put hundreds of hours into a page(s) (that few if any readers ever looked at) isn't itself a reason to keep. In fact, it's a reason for encouraging editors to do something more useful instead. :A portal consisting of thousands of copied subpages that probably had just one person (the page's creator) watchlisting each one and doesn't have strong support from other editors interested in the topic (e.g. who would copy across changes from the articles) was not maintainable in the long term. DexDor (talk) 14:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC) |
style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" |
style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" |
|
---|
style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
:{{DRV links|Tiff's_Treats|xfd_page=WP:Articles_for_deletion/Tiff's_Treats|article=}} The decision to delete this page is the result of an extremely narrow interpretation of WP:NCORP and WP:ORGIND. As editors, our mandate is not to re-interpret editorial decisions made by legitimate media outlets. Doing so puts the entire premise of WP as an encyclopedia at stake. The analysis presented by {{u|HighKing}} essentially challenges the editorial decisions of an independent newsroom to publish a story about this subject. HighKing is basing their analysis on the fact that the stories about this subject contain minimal sources outside of the subject. While it might be reasonable to challenge the newsroom on their reporting, it is not our role. It is not unusual to read articles with limited sources. The subject of this page has been profiled in a number of different, legitimate, independent, media outlets. We cannot take the rigid stance that if a piece of news is not reported to a degree that we would prefer, that it is therefore illegitimate for inclusion as a proper citation. Web pages, press releases, and other obvious self-promotional channels are clearly not legitimate sources for citations. However, it is not our role to be challenging the editorial decisions of major, independent media outlets in this way. While one could understand the need for additional citations for this subject, I firmly disagree with the decision to delete based on the analysis of one individual and urge further review of how WP:NCORP and WP:ORGIND policies are being interpreted in this instance. In the meantime, the decision to delete should be reversed. Coffee312 (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
: An editorial decision by an independent newsroom to publish a story does not make the non-independent story independent. : User:HighKing's analysis was correct. : User:Cunard has a habit of reference bombing discussions with a large number of weak sources, weak in terms of demonstrating notability. : WP:Reference bombing has become a pretty standard technique for bamboozling reviewers. The answer is WP:THREE. If the best three are not good enough, no number of additional weaker sources will help. Name the best three. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
::Oh, also the same warnings and escalating blocks for editors who repeatedly source-bomb AFDs with a bunch of news articles, books and journal articles they themselves clearly haven't read. I have seen more than my fair share of AFDs end in "keep" or "no consensus -- default to keep" results because of this kind of disruptive behaviour. (Perhaps the most disruptive example in my experience was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Korean_influence_on_Japanese_culture&oldid=749426626 here], although in that case there was no "bombing", since only two or three sources the keep !voters hadn't read were actually presented. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mottainai&oldid=566194065 This] is another example, since while the problem was more [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_%E2%80%93_Rescue_list&diff=566160059&oldid=566022303 !vote-stacking] than people posting links to sources they hadn't read/understood, the latter still [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mottainai&diff=566157894&oldid=566038482 definitely occurred] -- from a syspop, who even [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mottainai&diff=565521145&oldid=565518877 defended] an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/JoshuSasori/Archive&oldid=539917283#22_February_2013 IP sock of a site-banned user] and never retracted said defense!) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
|
style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |