Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 January 26

Indiagames Ghajini Mobile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

I believe this article was improperly deleted. The notability of the subject was demonstrated in the AfD with links to India's national newspaper and several other Indian news outlets. As for the article being a copyvio, this was merely suspected and not proven, and can be easily rectified. SharkD (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Closing admin The consensus was very strong at the AFD for deletion. The only person to support retention of the article was the person bringing this DRV. I cannot see any other possible close of the AFD. MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Correct me if I'm wrong, but AfD is not a vote. I raised compelling reasons not to proceed with the deletion; it's your job to weigh these issues and determine the appropriate outcome. SharkD (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Further, I would not consider consensus to have been "very strong" with only four people having voted in favor of deletion. SharkD (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse, consensus cearly established, process clearly followed. While an AfD is not a vote, it is based on consensus, which is generally (but not always) established by a tally of opinions (!votes). Usrnme h8er (talk) 08:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. DRV is not AFD round 2, and the process has been followed properly. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Allow recreation of any neutrally written, reliably sourced piece - although the topic of the article seems to be covered to some degree at Ghajini (2008 film)#Mobile Content. To my mind some of the sources found by SharkD - which were presented late in the discussion - significantly impact on the earlier arguments that claim a lack of notability; this profile in The Hindu alone would require some explanation of why the games are not notable. Guest9999 (talk) 18:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Exactly. That's why I think those votes should have been weighted less, and have contributed less to the "strong" sense of deletion. I.e. if later evidence suggest that previous statements were not true, then the previous statements should not be considered as much. SharkD (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse but allow recreation provided the content is not a copy of anything resembling a copy-and-paste from another website (in response to the reviewer, have clearly noted that I could not show a copyvio but instead strongly suspected it) and not blatant advertising. When I read the article in the AFD, it was clear that the purpose of the article was for promotion, as I have indicated in that AFD. Notable or not, spamming is not allowed in the English Wikipedia and is subject to deletion per the deletion policy. MuZemike 03:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• endorse/ keep deleted nn YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 23:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Country Tracks chart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

I took this redirect to RFD because I found it misleading. The Hot Country Songs chart was never called "Country Tracks", while RPM DID have a chart that was called Country Tracks. I suggested it be deleted since it was misleading. The discussion failed to achieve consensus, and I boldly retargeted it to RPM (magazine) only to have the redirect undone. I still think that anyone looking for "Country Tracks" is more likely to be looking for the chart that actually did bear that name, and am seeking further input here per the suggestion of one of the "keep" voters. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - this is an appeal against the RFD closure at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 January 10. TerriersFan (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse closure - the RFD was properly closed. The nominator's arguments were considered but did not find sufficient acceptance. As a BTW, it should be noted that this chart is not mentioned in the RPM article and, in my view, the present target, is useful. TerriersFan (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse, there was indeed no consensus. Nothing's stopping anyone from retargeting the redirect, though. Stifle (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment this sounds like a place for a disam page, not a redirect. DGG (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• It would be, but what would it say for the current redirect? The Hot Country Songs chart was never called "Country Tracks"? Usrnme h8er (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• In any case, endorse? overturn? what? the result was no consensus - and that's clearly what it was. This is not a place for a 2nd nomination of RfD. What we should be doing is closing this RfD and moving this to a discussion to the talk page. If Hammer and Terrier can't agree, move the discussion to RfC, mediation or arbitration accordingly. Usrnme h8er (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• Wrong venue The nominator of this DRV doesn't seem to be requesting that my closure of the original Rfd be overturned, so it seems that there's nothing to review here. This is something to be worked out between the editors having the dispute. If it can't be worked out on the talk page of the redirect, then the easiest way to handle it is to re-nominate it for Rfd, with the intended outcome as retarget instead of delete. This might result in a clear consensus one way or the other as to where the redirect should point. Either way, DRV is not the place for the discussion.--Aervanath (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Never mind, this was stupid. I probably wouldn't have taken this to DRV had TerriersFan had not suggested. Can someone close this? We seem to have agreed now that retargeting is fine. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Black president (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

There was no consensus for deletion, it met all requirements for notability and verifiability. The article tracked the historical speculations of an African American president pre Obama. It now appears here at: User:ChildofMidnight/Black president minus the talk page, with many additions to the lede by ChildofMidnight. I can't find the deletion talk. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• There is no deleted article by that name. I think you are looking for Black president (United States) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (small "p"). The AFD was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black president. IMO, the deletion is procedurally correct based on that AFD. Endorse deletion. --B (talk) 03:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse — sticking my head out on this one, but (having not commented in the AFD), I agree with the closing admin's synthesis observation, which is certainly within policy to delete. MuZemike 04:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Question: All WP articles are synthesis; what would be an issue is "Synthesis of published material which advances a position". What position is this trying to advance? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
    • This is a judgment call (and probably a difficult judgment call made by the closing admin), but I think the article was basically created as a result of Barack Obama's election as U.S. president (I won't go into recentism as this is irrelevant to this argument). That is clear, at least to me, in the lead section of the article, where it explains why this article is here. Yes, there have been fascinations in the past about a black U.S. President, but to use the sources cited and tie it all in and funnel and culminate it into the election and presidency of Barack Obama without any verifiability of that tie-in/culmination in terms of the subject of the article is what I think is synthesis of sources and hence original research. That's why, even though I think the closing admin made the right call, it was nowhere near an easy call to make. With that said, if users are challenging the closing admin's (and mine by syllogism) call, then I would not oppose a relist at AFD. Otherwise, I still stand by my endorsement. MuZemike 18:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. When the number of editors supporting and opposing deletion is close or equal, the closing admin may (and indeed should) consider whether arguments reflect Wikipedia policies or personal preferences of the contributors, and whether arguments which have been raised have been refuted by the other side or not. In this case, the admin did just that and came to the correct result. The article also seems to fail WP:CSB. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse, I consider the administrators explanation of the close to be valid, well motivated and well anchored in policy. Usrnme h8er (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• endorse deletion I disagree with the deletion but it seems like a reasonable close given the circumstances. Possibly if the article can be modified so that it uses secondary sources that talk about the idea of a black president or the history of the idea to deal with the original research objection it could then go back into mainspace. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• Relist Overturn as no consensus (see further discussion and new !vote below) The Afd is a mess. With the article undergoing substantial changes in midstream, and the substantial alterations of opinion among many editors, this is a clear no consensus to me. The closing editor even implicitly states this, saying that "There is little redeeming about the current state of the article. That, combined with the debate leaning somewhat toward a 'delete' decision moves me to close as delete." (emphasis mine) This was preceded by reasoning (quite good reasoning, and I absolutely agree with it) that set out the reasons why the closing editor felt the article should be deleted. Unfortunately, that reasoning was not appropriate for a closing rationale, but it was appropriate for a !vote. So, in essence, the admin substituted his own opinion for the (lack of) consensus present in the discussion. While I also would have voted delete, we should not be closing discussions in this manner without a crystal clear grounding in policy. While I agree with the interpretation, the interpretation of WP:SYN in this case was somewhat debatable, and therefore doesn't reach the standard of clarity I need to see before I invoke policy to find consensus where it is not otherwise present. The article should be restored to mainspace and relisted at Afd, where hopefully a less confusing discussion can take place.--Aervanath (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Clarification: Now that User:ChildofMidnight has recreated the article as Black president in popular culture of the United States, and it is substantially different than the previous one.it is THAT article that should be relisted. Black president is now a disambig page, and should stay that way.--Aervanath (talk) 05:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse insufficient secondary sources and unencyclopedic subject. Racepacket (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus in line with the closers comment "Looking at this debate, it's clear the decision of whether or not to include this topic is a controversial one." He's not there to decide such things--if WPedians disagree, he is to say so. I do not at all consider the article OR, but rather the collection of obvious published material and putting it in order into an article. That's the way Wikipedia articles should be written. DGG (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn as no consensus or relist with latest version restored I tried to read the closer's justification, which comes off as a personal vote and not as an interpretation of the consensus of participants. Looking at the state of the article before and after the AfD started, the article was improved, expanded and thoroughly sourced to address the issues that had been raised in the nomination. The AfD was headed to certain deletion at the start, and the fact that several individuals who had voted to delete changed to keep over the course of the discussion is a rather strong indication that this article should have been kept, with a close as a keep or no consensus. As the closing administrator appears to have imposed his own personal view of the article rather than a reflection of the consensus of the community, the close is out of process and should be overturned. Alansohn (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn. The AFD showed no consensus and while Obama may well have been the cause for the article's existence, that does not come close to making WP:SYNTH applicable. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn as no consensus due to substantial enough secondary sources to write an encyclopedic article and certainly relevant given recent history. Alansohn makes a compelling case above as well and Childofmidnight seems to be doing good work and he will receive greater help from other editors in mainspace than in userspace. Enough disagreement that I would not call it a keep, but certainly not enough for a delete. Doing a quick source search suggests that it is a topic discussed in academic arenas in any event. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. First of all, this was very clearly a very tough call (or it would have been for me, had I been holding the mop). The concerns expressed above about the lack of consensus are not without foundation; there was no obvious consensus. But admins are not just supposed to count votes; we place our trust in them because they need to make these calls from time to time. And this "article" was rife with problems. In my own opinion, it failed because it was a collection of trivia that was only tagentially connected by an association with the concept of a black American president. But that's all it was. Did the article's contributor's establish notability? In my opinion, in this case, that is not enough: "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." This article failed even the low threshold of WP:LEAD, as the opening sentence failed (in all its incarnations) to summarize accurately the topic/s covered in the article. I know that this article's editors put in a tremendous amount of work trying to make it palatable, but in the end, at it's ostensible best, this article in no way represented an encyclopedia article. It did not describe something that is obviously extant (such as starfish or algebra or Barack Obama and it had no main idea ("black president" is not an idea, it is merely a phrase), such as Biological classification, Academic discipline, or presidential succession. It was a collection of trivia from music and movies and history, that simply happened to be "connected" by the words "black president". Unschool 07:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn as no consensus or relist The discussion did not have a delete consensus. With several changing their deletes to keeps (and none the other way) individual editors didn't come to an internal consenus even. The idea of "black president" seems clear and discriminate enough for an article. The final, improved article had no obvious policy violations, the only kind where using administrative discretion is proper. As the article develops, it might be thought best to split it (or not), but this is normal editting, not deletion.John Z (talk) 08:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment. That an idea is "clear" is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition, for meriting an article. The idea of blue curtains is clear enough, but does not merit an article in Wikipedia. Another question is, is this more noteworthy than Blue curtains? At first glance it might seem so, but first we must determine what exactly was this article's subject? That to me is the single biggest objection. If you can't express in your opening sentence what the article is actualy about in a way that lets the reader know what's coming, you've likely erred in choosing your subject.

I have no objection to any of this material being included in the encyclopedia. It's not the material to which I object, it's the manner in which it was combined. I see two ways that this would better be included. On the one hand, it could, of course (as it probably already was), be included in other articles, such as Barack Obama, Shirley Chisholm, The Man (novel) _{(which was—quick plug—by the way, a million times better than the movie staring James Earl Jones)}, or Black President (Black President album). But I can also understand the desire to consolidate some of this. As such, I could support an article on Black presidents in fiction or even Black presidents in entertainment, as well as a separate article on The history of black presidential candidates. But this? This article is akin to combining Sweeny Todd and barber into Barber (Sweeny Todd). In this combo article, I would propose that we discuss the ways that barbers have been portrayed in fiction, and also how the actual trade of barbers spread, and how Sweeny Todd has been in books and plays and movies, and how barbers were once the providers of medical assistance, etc. Of course this is ridiculous, for the two combined do not make an appropriate article. But that is what we had in this now-deleted article. There is simply not enough cause to warrant the combination of these items into a single article; we end up with an unreadable collection of trivia.

Having said all this, I will also acknowledge my novice status on these pages; maybe I don't understand deletion policy. But unfamiliarity with policy does not preclude the ability to recognize good writing. If a student of mine turned this in, I'd ask him to please narrow it down to a more definable topic. Indeed, when I read the praise for the (admitedly large amount of) work done on this article, I'm still left to wonder if people are really evaluating this article in toto, as opposed to evaluating the accuracy of its parts. Because it is certainly possible for the parts to be healthy but the whole to be untenable, is it not? Unschool 09:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse The closing admin made the correct decision in favoring the policy-based arguments (most notably that the article couldn't be created without original research and synthesis). AfD isn't a vote, which is why the closing administrator gets to make the final decision. In choosing the decision based on policy over ILIKEIT the admin made the correct move. Themfromspace (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion the questions of sourcing and synthesis were not adequately addressed by those wishing for the article to be kept, adding sources to an original work does not mean it meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Guest9999 (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• So I ask again, how did the article synthesise material to advance a position?

• I think the way disconnected information is presented together amounts to original research in the form of synthesis - in this instance relating mentions of Black presidents in popular culture with the real life Black president and presidential candidates in a way that is not discussed in the sources provided. The position advanced is effectively the topic itself but there are also specific statements made in the lead such as "The idea of a black president was an influential idea explored by various writers." and "Some of the most popular depictions were comedic parodies of the culture gap and what life would be like under a black president and for a black president." not supported by any one source. Effectively this is two articles, one which should be titled some thing like Depictions of a Black US President in popular culture (which in my opinion would be of dubious merit) and one which contains information about Barack Obama and others which is already present elsewhere in more obvious locations (such as Barack Obama). Guest9999 (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion the closing admin got it correct; I agree with Guest9999's well-worded comment above. The problem here is that anyone can constuct a synthesis of fictional Xoos played by Foos and create an essay to push whatever agenda you want. It's not what an encyclopedia should contain. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse - The closing administrator made an appropriate close based on relevant policies and the strength of the arguments presented. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Strong overturn or perhaps allow recreation since Child of Midnight's version is a little different from what was in the AFD. Has anyone looked at the reference list? A number of secondary sources are making the connection between black presidents in popular culture and Barack Obama. It's not a violation of WP:SYN if the synthesis isn't original to us. If it looks like synthesis that's a problem that can be fixed with editing, since we have the sources. Wkdewey (talk) 04:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment. This may now all be moot. Child of Midnight is apparently taking the suggestion that some of us made to separate this into other articles. See Black presidential candidates in the United States and Black president in popular culture of the United States. I think that this seals the deal, there's no point in re-establishing this article. Unschool 04:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply: The article Black president in popular culture of the United States that User:ChildofMidnight created is essentially the same as the one whose deletion we are reviewing here, so this is definitely not moot. If this deletion review does not overturn the previous close, the new article could be speedily deleted under WP:CSD#G4.--Aervanath (talk) 05:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Aervanath. While CoM has clearly used the deleted article as the foundation, it is most definitely not the same article, as all references to Obama and other real-life candidates have been removed. The article is now just about what the title says it's about, Black Presidents in pop culture, and it has categories in fiction, music, and comedy. I can't speak for anyone else, but I find this to be a much stronger foundation for an article than when the same was included with Shirley Chisholm and Barack Obama. It might well fail an AfD, but a speedy? I would think that quite improper. Unschool 06:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops You are absolutely right; I did not examine the new article carefully enough. CSD criterion G4 only applies "provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version". The new article, no matter how I feel about it, is certainly not "substantially identical". I have changed my !vote above to reflect that.--Aervanath (talk) 11:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I wasn't aware of this discussion until Unschool let me know about it a little while ago in a response to my letting him know that I recreated the article as two new ones. I followed the sensible suggestion of several delete voters who said the subject should be split up. If my recreation of the seperated and somewhat modified articles in any way circumvented proper procedure I have no objection to the articles being moved back to my userspace until this discussion is resolved. I've formulated a long response with my thoughts, but I think I'll leave it up to those already discussing the issues involved to decide on the appropriate course of action. Thanks to all those who worked on the article and have taken an interest in the issues involved. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Restatement of situation as I see it: The article formerly at the title Black president was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black president. It was then userfied to User:ChildofMidnight's userspace, where it was substantially reworked and restored to Black president in popular culture of the United States. That article can't be G4'ed, because it's not identical to the original copy, although it may or may not pass another Afd. Blech. Here's my new vote:
• Close this drv as moot. For the record, I still think the AFD should have been a no consensus close, but since it's all moot now, could someone just close this? If not, I'll go ahead and do it myself. --Aervanath (talk) 11:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• For anyone interested, the original article ended up being spun off into the following articles: Black presidential candidates in the United States, Black president in popular culture of the United States, and (by another editor) African-American heritage of United States presidents. I'm also curious about using black or African American in the titles if anyone wants to weigh in on the talk pages... ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)