Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 February 14

:{{DRV links|Glorification of martyrdom in Palestinian society|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 21#Glorification of martyrdom in Palestinian society|article=}}

While I do not personally think it's that important whether this redirect is kept or deleted, I feel that closing as keep was inappropriate and that no consensus (and perhaps even delete) would have been more appropriate. I am not here out of a very strong feeling that the redirect has to go, just that there's a mismatch between the discussion and the result. While Wikipedia is of course not a vote, keep was the slim minority position in this discussion (myself included as the nom, delete !votes were a majority of 1), and both sides provided valid arguments to support their positions.

In my time editing Wikipedia, I don't think I've ever seen a majority position be overridden without a clear and obvious difference in the quality of the arguments, no matter how slim the difference in !votes may be. Usually only in situations where the majority was the result of a discussion being flooded with nonsense !votes from unregistered canvassed users. And even then, I may have never actually seen an example of the majority being overridden, as even extreme cases like that tend to result in fresh discussions.

While one could argue in good faith that the strength of the arguments was not equal on both sides in this discussion and the 1 !vote majority is not sufficient for a delete consensus (though at Redirects for Discussion it is incredibly normal for every discussion to be low participation and decided by slim majorities like this), I feel that even a most charitable assessment of the discussion would conclude that no consensus is a more appropriate close than keep. Functionally the same thing, as no consensus to delete means keeping by default, but it matters that this would be a more accurate reflection of the discussion as there was certainly not a consensus in favor of keeping.

Initially, the discussion was simply closed with a statement reading that the result was keep and had no further elaboration. I reached out to the closing administrator to discuss this, and to their credit, they did amend it with a rationale note, but I was disappointed to see that the rationale note simply stated that "All arguments were countered by participants who voted to keep the term as a redirect" as I felt this didn't really say anything specific about the merits of the arguments. Again to their credit, the closing administrator took the time to reply to me with examples of editors replying with counterarguments. But while I appreciate their time, this reasoning baffled me. Never before have I seen it implied that one editor simply expressing disagreement with another editor is enough to nullify the !vote of another editor. The examples the closer gave were things like: one editor says the title is not a plausible search term, a second editor says it is a plausible search term. But according to the closer, "the deleters were countered by the keepers, but the keepers weren't countered by the deleters", as if to suggest the consensus is determined by whoever gets the last word in?

In short: to me this looks like a no consensus situation at most, and given that it's normal for redirects for discussion to be decided by even 1 !vote majorities, delete would have also been a valid close, but I think the closer's decision to close as keep is very strange and confusing.

Even shorter version: no consensus > delete > keep. Thank you for taking the time to read my ramblings, I know I'm not good at being concise. Hope my train of thought made sense at least.

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• Speedy close as a pointless exercise. What possible difference would it make if we change "Keep" to "No consensus"? We're trying to write an encyclopedia here, not interpret Scripture. The closing admin was right in his decision. Unlike articles, redirects don't need to establish notability. They just need to be found useful by some users, and not be found harmful by a consensus. The Delete views in that RfD did not amount to a consensus, and the redir was correctly kept. Owen× ☎ 23:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
• :Respectfully, I think this reply has an unnecessarily scornful tone. The first bullet-point of WP:DRVPURPOSE states that deletion review is for situations where one believes the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly, which is the case here as I personally believed "keep" was the least accurate interpretation of the discussion we had. It's a bit much to give a disdainful response condemning this request as a pointless exercise equivalent to "interpreting scripture" incompatible with the goal of building an encyclopedia. I simply expressed that I didn't see sufficient reason for overriding the slim majority for delete or stating that there was a consensus for keep as I saw no such consensus. Both sides made policy-based arguments, both sides asserted that the term either was or was not a plausible search term, but neither side substantiated those claims with evidence beyond one !vote making the circular argument that the existence of the title is in and of itself evidence of it being a plausible term. I respect that you disagree, your perspective is entirely valid, I just would have wished you delivered that disagreement in a way that didn't sound so contemptuous as I don't think asking for a review here was such an unreasonable thing to do.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 04:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
• ::The purpose of DRV is to correct XfD closing mistakes so as to improve the encyclopedia, per WP:5P1. Your appeal is an honest attempt to correct what you see as an RfD closing mistake, but even if it succeeds, it will have zero impact on the encyclopedia. This is an effort driven by your sense of justice or aesthetics, but it serves no practical purpose, hence my comparison to theology. Also, I dispute your assessment of the Delete views on the MfD as being policy-based. "Per the AfD" is not a valid policy-based argument. The original AfD achieved consensus for renaming the article, but any views expressed there about the subsequent disposition of the resultant redirect page have no relevance to the RfD. But again, the question is purely academic and pointless. I urge you to withdraw your appeal, not for being incorrect, but for being a waste of editors' time. Owen× ☎ 12:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
• :::Final thoughts:

::::I will agree that without context, "Per the AfD" might read as a confusing statement with no relation to any valid deletion criteria. In context, "Per the AfD" seems to be a roundabout way of expressing that the editor believes in their subjective opinion the title is sufficiently offensive to warrant deletion, which is a valid rationale. Of course, it would not be reasonable to expect a closer to read what the user had to say elsewhere to understand their !vote, but I just wanted to briefly mention that to defend the legitimacy of their rationale.

::::There are a few reasons why I disagree that this a waste of time:

::::# Most importantly, as I outlined in the nom comments, I believed there was a nonzero possibility of a second opinion finding that delete should have been the outcome as it was in fact the majority opinion, and that certainly would not have been a waste of time. This request was not simply "please change it to no consensus", it was more broadly "please take a second look at this and tell me what you think."

::::# I also believe no consensus results are more inviting to future re-discussions. Not to say that "keep" is in any way inherently prejudicial to the possibility of future re-discussion, but no consensus results recognize that the issue remains unresolved, as opposed to suggesting that the issue has been settled already. This is a meaningful difference which has value to the goal of building an encyclopedia.

::::# Lastly, I also think the question of "was this correct" is in and of itself a valid and constructive reason to pursue a review.

::::But, in any case, I do intend to withdraw this because it is clear that a consensus will not develop in favor of a change to the outcome. I appreciate that some of the endorsers, especially the weak endorsers, seemed a little more sympathetic to my reasons for bringing this to DR. Thank you to those who took the time to respond to this request.

:::: Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• Keep [https://www.academia.edu/38131176/Palestinian_Culture_and_the_Glorification_of_Suicide_Martyr_Istishhady_?uc-g-sw=1717182 this] shows the topic is used in academic discourse. Redirection to a more neutral title is appropriate, but this redirect is clearly talking about a legitimate topic covered by RS'es. Jclemens (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse there was no *effective* rebuttal to the keep arguments of it being a reasonable search term. Keep argumnts provided grounds for it being considered a reasonable search term, delete arguments simply asserted it was not. FWIW, I'd concur with the suggestion in the discussion to use {{tlx|R from non-neutral name}}. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
• I'd have gone no consensus myself, but keep is functionally equivalent. Weak endorse. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
• Weak Endorse valid outcome, and no change to the ultimate result. SportingFlyer T·C 09:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
• I am obviously biased here so will not be bolding anything, but I see this close as correct. There were multiple reasons given for why this is a plausible and indeed likely search term (being a redirect from a move, this and similar titles being created multiple times) and Jclemens above provides another reason why it meets the standards at WP:RNEUTRAL (the relevant guideline). It was also noted that it's not a very non-neutral term relative to the target. These fully rebut the only relevant part of the nomination (not a plausible search term) - what AfD or RM said about the title of the article is not relevant to any resultant redirects. The only other argument given for deletion was "superfluous" but as (I) noted that's not a reason to delete any redirect. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 12:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
• Neutral - I think that No Consensus was the best closure, but overturning a Keep to a No Consensus would be meaningless process for process. Redirects are cheap. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Satoshi Utsunomiya|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satoshi Utsunomiya|article=}}

• Withdraw. My mistake and lack of understanding regarding notability. I will support the keep of page again, and just will let discuss about user problem in other place.I previously recommended keeping this article in response to a previous deletion request. However, when I think about it again, I think this person is not noteworthy enough to be listed on the English version of Wikipedia. The number of papers he contributed to is not large. As far as I could find, this[https://bioone.org/journals/paleontological-research/volume-16/issue-2/1342-8144-16.2.079/A-Large-Mosasaurine-Squamata--Mosasauridae-from-the-Latest-Cretaceous/10.2517/1342-8144-16.2.079.short] was the only formally published paper that he contributed to. He has published numbers of thesis, but I don't know if they will be noteworthy. (Compare with Yasuhisa Nakajima, who collaborates with him and has published many papers, have many of media appearance, but does not even have a Japanese Wikipedia article.) He has a lot of media exposure in Japan, has published several books, and is often mentioned in the Japanese news about paleontology, but it is unclear whether he is an important enough person to warrant an article on the English Wikipedia. Of course, I appreciate his achievements so much as Japanese paleo-fan, but I think the Japanese version of Wikipedia's article is enough. The editor of this page (User:山登 太郎) only makes edits about him and his contributions, and causes problems such as negative statements about other researchers, publicity, copyright violations, etc in Japanese Wikipedia.[https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%88%A9%E7%94%A8%E8%80%85%E2%80%90%E4%BC%9A%E8%A9%B1:%E5%B1%B1%E7%99%BB_%E5%A4%AA%E9%83%8E] This user also created a page on the Chinese version of Wikipedia, but it has since been deleted, and got the comment "There is no need to translate the same article into other languages." It is about the user just created Chinese language version to Japanese Wikipedia. I mistook, so I will overturn this.[https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%88%A9%E7%94%A8%E8%80%85%E2%80%90%E4%BC%9A%E8%A9%B1:%E5%B1%B1%E7%99%BB_%E5%A4%AA%E9%83%8E#%E9%81%95%E3%81%86%E8%A8%80%E8%AA%9E%E3%81%A7%E3%81%AE%E6%8A%95%E7%A8%BF%E3%83%9F%E3%82%B9%E3%81%AB%E3%81%A4%E3%81%84%E3%81%A6] Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 13:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse. The appellant has not presented any argument for overturning what was a unanimous AfD, discounting the unreasoned nomination there. Notability is not language-dependent. If the subject of this article is notable, it is notable in Japanese, English, Chinese or any other language. If the zh-wiki admin deleted the page based on the argument, "There is no need to translate the same article into other languages", then that admin's action should be examined. We encourage the translation, with attribution, of all articles into all languages. And unless the appellant uncovered evidence that was not available to the participants of last week's AfD, I suggest they wait six months before renominating for deletion. That said, {{u|山登 太郎}} should be looked at in terms of being a SPA/COI editor, with a possible indef page/topic block. Owen× ☎ 13:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
• :The problem is that none of the users who voted for these opinions specialize in paleontology articles. Look at deletion request of another paleo-related person Emily Willoughby, in this discussion users who specialize paleontology/biology articles are commented. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
• :I completely mistook, Chinese version of page was contributed in Japanese Wikipedia, so that is removed. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
• ::Participants in an AfD aren't required to be subject matter experts. They are merely required to be able to assess available sources, and be familiar with Wikipedia's verifiability and notability policies and guidelines. Several highly experienced editors participated in that AfD. You are attempting to dismiss them all based on your claimed expertise in palaeontology. That is not how things work here.
• ::And please move your "Overturn" !vote to the nomination, where it belongs, or else it comes across as a duplicate. Owen× ☎ 14:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
• :::Is this ok? I am not used to closing deletion request... Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
• ::::You're arguing for an overturn in your nomination, and then you have a separate bolded "overturn" below. If you need help combining the two, I'll be happy to do it for you. Owen× ☎ 23:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
• :::::Is this ok now? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
• :::::@OwenX What I tried to do was to withdraw this deletion request and keep the page again. Probably I did it wrong sorry... Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 05:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)