Controversies related to prevalence of Jews in leadership roles in Hollywood (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This debate was very long (134KB) and very controversial, yet it was closed with no rationale whatsoever. My personal vote in the end was "undecided", so I would have been fine with any decision. However I, and I think many others, were looking forward to a closing rationale that showed evidence of a thought process proportional to this debate. I would have liked to see a careful weighing of all sides, along with, hopefully, a wise and well thought-out conclusion. Rather than completely overturned, I'd like this closing to simply be "undone", so that another admin can perform the closing of this debate with the proper thought and consideration. Equazcion (talk) 16:02, 26 Oct 2009 (UTC)

• The closer might have provided a rationale, if you had given them more than one hour and 9 minutes after the first talk page message on this subject. Just saying... Tim Song (talk) 16:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lack of a rationale to begin with is suspect in itself to me. I don't want rationale cooked up just because people complained. I'd like a closing by someone who saw the need for rationale in the first place, on their own. Equazcion (talk) 16:09, 26 Oct 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse the close was a reasonable interpretation of consensus - a closing rationale whilst preferable is not required. Guest9999 (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't it the closing administrator's responsibility to evaluate the arguments advanced in the discussion? Isn't it their responsibility to discount the bad arguments, those that violate or misinterpret our policies? Practically every single participant who voiced a "delete" argument in the {{afd}} called upon the authority of WP:Coatrack as if it were a policy. But coatrack is not a policy, it is just an essay. And every single one of those contributors misinterpreted the essay's recommendation with regard to when it is appropriate to delete an article based on a coatrack concern. Geo Swan (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia:Coatrack suggests deletion in cases when "there is little chance the article can be salvaged", I believe this is the view presented by the majority of those who referenced the essay - including myself. The essay is question is essentially a representation of how "one or more Wikipedia contributors" interpret portions of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - both policies - in regard to a certain type of article. Linking to the essay simply saves the user having to explain the idea of a "coatrack" - and why they think they go against policy - by retyping the essence of the essay as part of an AfD. Guest9999 (talk) 02:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse—even if you ignore the overwhelming majority of keep vs. delete !votes (over 75%), even looking at the arguments, there is clear consensus to delete. Several of the proponents of keeping the article assumed that its problem was bad sourcing, and did a good job looking for sources. However, if one reads the delete rationales, they were not about a lack of sources—but about inherent POV and the article being a coatrack. I haven't read 100% of the discussion, but from what I read, there can be no question as to the properness of the closure. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Entirely reasonable decision. The lack of a rationale could have been fixed by speaking with the closing admin. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse seemed reasonable given the majority of deletion votes, and clear consensus opinion to delete...Modernist (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The result was indeed delete, so I endorse the closure, but a closing rationale would in that particular instance have been helpful.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Indeed, deletion could have been declared per WP:SNOW much sooner. A strong and thoughtful consensus emerged virtually from the start. Equazcion consistently ignored everyone's reasons, prolonging the process without ever engaging other people's reasons. This request was predictable. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...as was this endorsement; Slrubenstein was arguably the most vocal supporter of deletion. To him and the rest of the people endorsing the deletion itself, I'd like to remind everyone that I don't necessarily have a problem with a delete decision, but with this particular closing, for the reasons I stated in my nomination. Equazcion (talk) 17:42, 26 Oct 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. Closed properly, and reflected consensus. ShamWow (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Closure reprsented consensus, that is all that is necessary. -- Avi (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - To clarify my reason for bringing this to DRV, I'd like clarification, from an uninvoled administrator, on which policies apply to this article and why. I think that's an important part of closing a discussion as long and controversial as this one was. I myself was torn in the end on how policy applied here, especially when the POV fork argument was introduced, and would like to know how that policy, or other policies might apply to this article. My rethought neutral vote can be seen easily near the top of the AfD, and expresses my concerns. I think it's important that that matter be settled in terms of similar future incidents. The ambiguous closing doesn't address the underlying questions brought up in this debate. Equazcion (talk) 18:01, 26 Oct 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn -- several of the "endorse" opinions above state that "delete" was a reasonable interpretation of the consensus of the discussion. But isn't it the responsibility of the closing administrator to discount counter-policy arguments. Among the first dozen opinions expressed on the {{afd}} all of them claim the authority of the WP:coatrack essay. First, WP:Coatrack is not a wikipedia policy or guideline. So calling upon its authority as if it were a policy was a mistake on the part of those participants. And, I am afraid I regard it as a mistake on the part of the closing administrator to have failed to call them on it. I think even if he or she had concluded the other arguments in favor of deletion were telling, they should have explicitly reminded the errant contributors that they should not call upon the authority of essays as if they were official policies. Second, even if, for the sake of argument, we were going to treat WP:Coatrack as if it had the force of policy -- it does not recommend deletion as the first solution to articles that trigger coatrack concerns. It first recommends rewriting the passages that trigger the coatrack concern, or explaining one's concern on the talk page. It recommends a nomination for deletion only as a last resort, only when good faith attempts at discussion fail. So, every contributor who voiced a "delete" opinion based solely on coatrack should have had their opinion discounted as not compliant with policy. Once the invalid arguments it is the closing administrator's responsibility to discount are thrown out it seems to me a "no consensus" closure looks like the appropriate choice. FWIW this closure is a very strong argument for administrators to be expected to "show their work", and explain the reasoning behind their closures, and state which arguments they discounted, when reaching their conclusion. Geo Swan (talk) 18:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The close was reasonable. I find the just-an-essay argument exceedingly weak. Tim Song (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me, but I didn't say it "was just an essay". I said it was an essay that was innappropriately being called upon as if it had the authority of an official policy. And I pointed out that every single person who called upon it mis-interpreted its recommendation as to when it was appropriate to delete an article. Geo Swan (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you mean by calling the closure "reasonable" that you agree with the closing admin's decision? I don't think that is what the contributor who initiated this DRV is looking for. I think they are looking to see that an {{afd}} of this article is closed in a policy compliant manner. Should the article stay or be deleted? At this point only administrators and those who initially participated in the {{afd}} can have an informed decision on that. I am neither. While some DRV devolve into a re-do, a rehashing of the arguments in the {{afd}} I don't think that is appropriate here. I would like to see this discussion be about whether the closing administrator properly followed our rules in doing so, without regard to whether any of us think article should go, or stay. Geo Swan (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I can see only Noleander (talk · contribs) claimed that coatrack is policy. And he's arguing to keep. It is entirely proper to rely upon an essay; and in a deletion discussion, the implicit argument in the invocation would be that the alternatives are unavailable and that this is a irremediable coatrack.

      I find no error in the closing admin's reading of the consensus and am uncertain what exactly you were asking about in your second paragraph. Tim Song (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • WRT my second paragraph... most contributors comments here address whether they think the article did or did not merit deletion, or whether User:Coffee should have reached a "delete" conclusion. Hardly anyone is addressing User:Coffee's lapse in choosing not to leave a rationale that closure. User:Coffee's choice not to leave a rationale was a serious disservice for anyone interested in understanding why a "keep" or "merge" was a mistake, or interested in why he or she choose not to discount the counter-policy appeals to the authority of the non-existent coatrack policy, or how a new article that did not contain the flaws he or she saw in the current artcle could be written. Geo Swan (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse an entirely orderly close. Frankly the DRV rationale offered by the nominator is bizarre. Crafty (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But would the consensus had been for delete if the administrator had evaluated whether the arguments advanced complied with policy and discounted those that did not comply with policy? I don't think do. Geo Swan (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Complied with policy? What you really mean is "complied with your interpretation of policy. Crafty (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Those who called upon the authority of WP:Coatrack as if it were a policy all ignored the advice in its section on "What_to_do_about_coatracks": "An appropriate response to a coatrack article is to be bold and trim off excessive biased content while adding more balanced content cited from reliable sources. In extreme cases, when notability is borderline, and there is little chance the article can be salvaged, deletion of the entire article may be appropriate." Anyone who calls upon our actual policies and guidelines, or an essay, in a deletion discussion, has an obligation to faithfully represent what those documents say. Are you really arguing that there is an ambiguity in the advice in this essay about when it is appropriate to advocate deletion? Unfortunately it has become routine to call upon the authority of the coatrack essay, (1) as if it were a policy; and (2) while totally ignoring its advice on when deletion is appropriate. We don't accept WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:ILIKEIT as valid arguments in {{afd}}s. That is what these claims to the authority of a non-existent coatrack policy have become -- instances of the argument WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Geo Swan (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I might well have voted to keep if I had voted, but the consensus was for deletion. I agree that the numerous alternative proposals are viable and I am sure that a recreated article with a more neutral name and better sourcing might well have a place on Wikipedia. Alansohn (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The article had an inbuilt bias that made it unencyclopedic. That does not stop other writers from creating encyclopedic articles but it is better to start from scratch. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Topics don't have biases. It is only a presentation of a topic that can be biased, or neutral. The topic of the article was controversial. In my experience there is no topic so controversial that a neutrally written article can't be written about it, with enough effort, and if they are good WP:RS. That this article could have become an anti-semitic polemic -- if our policies were ignored, and that it might have posed a temptation to bigots to try to insert editorializing would be a very bad reason to delete. OK, I just checked the google cached version of the article. I don't think there is any doubt that the article cited plenty of WP:RS. Did it cite, paraphrase, quote those WP:RS in a biased way? If someone thought so the appropriate place to raise that concern would be on the article's talk page, not in an {{afd}} or {{drv}}. Geo Swan (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, even though I was for "keep", because no other outcome is possible from this AfD, which has a clear consensus for deletion. But the closing admin really should have written a proper rationale when closing such a long discussion.  Sandstein  21:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. All the more often I am running into admins who simply feel they can do what they want. This is an all-too-frequently occurring event (check my contribs history) and MUST be put a stop to. Admins MUST offer a well reasoned rationale, MUST interpret community opinion correctly. This is not a dictatorship. What do I do to make other editors realize this? How do we address this? I am always open for suggestions...Turqoise127 (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What happened to WP:AGF? As an uninvolved admin, I endorse Coffee's decision to delete the article because consensus was very, very clear. We can't just assume admins are going rogue because we disagree with their actions. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse What can I say, I read the article and it seems like there was a consensus to delete. Most people just didn't buy the keep argument that the sources were sufficient to overcome the related coatrack/POV fork/original research issues. Personally I probably would have wanted to keep the article, but DRV is about whether the close was good or not, with respect to consensus and policy. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 22:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn censorship of wikipedia with no well reason gived at close. it seem real reason for delete might be wp:idontlikeit Ani medjool (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment - The reason I didn't provide a rational is that in my opinion it didn't require one. When an XFD is closed as delete it is automatically thought to infer that the admin saw that the consensus was to delete. It doesn't mean that they didn't look over the debate and equally weigh the issues, it in fact states the opposite, it shows, quite clearly, that I thought that the delete opinions were stronger and were the greater consensus. I see no reason to have to leave a huge paragraph of my idea of what is clearly already shown by itself in the AFD, it's not my opinion that matters anyway. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. To those who say we should just ask the closer for their rationale, notice that Coffee has not yet given a rationale here or on his talk page beyond asserting that the closure was obvious. We cannot even infer from the rationale you gave that you thought that there was consensus to delete; with the information given in your close your decision might well be arbitrary or according to your own preference. No reference to policies or guidelines was made, no reference to the merits of the arguments, no assessment at all. How can we distinguish your decision from a head-count or a coin toss? If we are happy with such a lack of explanation then surely someone could write a bot to do closes in this manner, it'd certainly make more time for admins to do something useful. Fences&Windows 23:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I like the fact that you seem able to ignore the fact, here, of what I said in my original reply to you on my talk page. I, quite clearly in fact, stated that I thought the consensus was to delete, and per the regular closes at AFD, when an administrator closes an XFD like this it means that they thought the consensus was to delete. It's not like I left a link to WP:IAR, or something that said that I didn't think that I was closing per the consensus, but you still seem to want to view this the way you want to view it. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 07:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain... -- Suppose I wanted to prepare a new version of this article -- one that addressed whatever issues you concluded merited deleting this article? What guidance would I find in your conclusory statement that would guide me in preparing a new article on this topic that would not merit deletion? I have argued elsewhere in the DRV, that you should have discounted all the arguments that were purely assertions the article didn't comply with WP:Coatrack. Maybe you actually think WP:Coatrack is a valid argument. If so your closing statment should have said so. And if you thought that the calls on the authority of WP:Coatrack weren't valid -- but that there were sufficient other arguments for deletion that were valid, your closing statement should have said so. Geo Swan (talk) 02:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Geo Swan, this is precisely what I'm driving at. I know Coffee is now telling us that he made a reasoned decision, but he's still not telling us how he arrived at it and how he weighed the various arguments - apart from telling me that my comments were worthless, which is always nice to know. Fences&Windows 04:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Consensus, particularly around policy, was clear. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Essentially accurate reading of consensus. I thought the article deserved to be kept, and the article that was actually deleted was very different from the one that was nominated, but there's no question the keepers were on the minority side of considered opinion on the subject. Ray^Talk 23:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Although including a rationale would have been wise given the extent of the discussion, it is not mandatory (at least not yet). The close accurately reflects the consensus of the discussion, so I see no good reason to re-open it. --RL0919 (talk) 23:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse: Trying to force out a rationale using DRV seems like an pretty unseemly tactic to me. I don't think simply because there was a lot of debate means that the conclusion is non-obvious. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per explanation of User:Coffee above and on his talk page [1]. The AfD was fairly clear-cut, despite User:Equazcion's past and present misgivings. Mathsci (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The pro-deletion editors represented a clear majority, despite the vocal efforts of a few people who opposed deletion. The editors who advocated keeping the article had backed down somewhat by the time the discussion closed, suggesting that a consensus was emerging in favor of "delete." Even so, consensus does not mean absolute consensus or else very little would get done. Having said this, I agree that the admin who deleted the article should probably have presented his own argument for a WP policy rationale. Although I am skeptical that WP:Coatrack is binding, I am also convinced there were bona fide WP policies to cite when deleting the article. --AFriedman (talk) 02:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from the AfD Nominator I never thought that I would be doing this, but here I am, about to make a statement about a deletion review of an article I nominated for deletion. But...here goes! If this had been any other AfD, after seeing the changes that were made in the article, I probably would have withdrawn my nomination. However, because it was so notable, (131kbs) I didn't because I wanted to see how it played out. As I have watched the conversation as it unfolded, I became more and more concerned about the tone that the AfD began to have, specifically on the part of some of those who voted delete. If you go back to my original nomination, I said nothing about coatrack, or any such nonsense. My original nomination was based on the fact that it was a cobbled-together grouping of things taken from other articles, and read like a high school paper (and a bad one at that!) It underwent some significant changes and became the beginnings of an article that I believed was worthy of inclusion, and as I said earlier, if this had been any other AfD, I probably would have withdrawn the nomination and this would all be a moot point. I have wrestled with this for the last couple days now, and as much as I risk being given a label that I don't like, I feel like I need to point out some things from the AfD. Without choosing to make comments about any one editor in particular, I feel very strongly that there was a small minority of people who responded to the AfD who chose to make the AfD about racism, their particular feelings about the subject, and their own offense taken...instead of about the article. As I said to someone else, I feel like the AfD got "hijacked" by a minority of pro-Jewish users who managed to push their personal views ahead of everyone else, and argued the AfD from a personal point of view instead of from a policy point of view. I will not go so far as to make accusations of meat-socking or wiki-canvassing, but I do feel that because of its very nature, it attracted a very vocal minority who then went on to make accusations about another user's personal beliefs that were unfounded and addressed, at least to my satisfaction, by the user in a very polite and civil way. Because of this, I am voting to Overturn, not because of the lack of rationale, but because the AfD may not have represented the majority opinion. Frmatt (talk) 02:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Transparency Note In the interests of transparency, I will state that I have spoken off-wiki with one user about this, and asked another user for advice, but the second user did not respond. The user that I spoke with voted Endorse and the user who hasn't responded voted for Overturn Frmatt (talk) 02:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good points, Frmatt--but despite the vocality of both sides, I still think the majority supported delete. I just want to let people know that I have redirected "Controversies..." to "Antisemitic canard" and "Jews and Hollywood" to "American Jews." I'd like to know if others think these pages should have been redirected elsewhere, and I'm also open to discussing which additional content should be added to which related articles. --AFriedman (talk) 03:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (e/c)And that (or something like it) was the compromise that I thought were were moving towards, which is why I was a little unhappy with a full delete, instead of one of the compromises that was proposed in the AfD. Frmatt (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close. There were some reasonable arguments on the keep side, but the rough consensus (by "vote count" about 75%) was in favor of deletion. Some rationale from the closer would be nice, but this is not required. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Why shouldn't rationale be required? I'd argue that in a controversial case like this it should be. I feel like I'm being told to accept the result of some closed-room proceeding, and being told to feel guilty about wanting to know what happened; "Trust us, we weighed everything fairly. No, we don't need to prove it. Accept it, and don't complain; You wouldn't want us to think you're accusing us of something." It's been suggested that complaining about this closing's lack of rationale is tantamount to assuming bad faith, but it's really not necessarily that. "Assume good faith" means to assume good intentions. To assume competency as well is just a recent colloquial definition, and it's not part of policy. Even if you happen to agree with this particular decision and therefore don't care about the absence of rationale, imagine a different scenario, where you might even be (god-forbid) in a minority position. Wouldn't you want an open disclosure of the thought process that led to a decision like this? Equazcion (talk) 15:59, 27 Oct 2009 (UTC)
  • Equazcion, you keep asserting that this was a "controversial case", but that's not really true. While there were a couple of very vocal editors insisting the article be kept (you, for example), in general the consensus was quite clear. An AfD doesn't become a "controversial case" simply because a couple of editors write many, many comments defending an article. In fact, it would have been a "controversial case" had the !votes been over 75% to keep, and it had been deleted. This is the exact opposite. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not calling the closing controversial, I'm calling the article controversial. My vocality at the discussion makes it easy to pin the controversy solely on me, but this was a controversial issue nonetheless. If you're saying this article wasn't controversial, you're certainly welcome to that opinion, but we'll have to agree to disagree there. Equazcion (talk) 00:13, 28 Oct 2009 (UTC)
      • If you're not calling the closing controversial, then why on earth are you bringing it to DRV? DRV is for discussing controversial closings, not "controversial articles", whatever those might be. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Controversy is strong and prolonged disagreement. My view is that there was strong and prolonged disagreement regarding the issue of whether or not to delete this article, enough to warrant a moderately comprehensive closing rationale. Whether or not the closing of that discussion was itself controversial is something to be determined here, at DRV. We're here to find that out. If there is strong and prolonged disagreement here, that means the closing was controversial. Equazcion (talk) 00:35, 28 Oct 2009 (UTC)
          • Many articles have "strong and prolonged" disagreement about their deletion, but that doesn't mean their deletion is controversial in any way. Two or three editors going on at extreme length about how they are correct and a dozen others are wrong isn't "controversy". Jayjg ^(talk) 00:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, strong and prolonged disagreement is controversy, so... that's still controversy, even if it is a majority against a minority. You're exaggerating the difference in numbers though, I think. And, reiterating Frmatt's point, I think there was a vocal minority who were arguing for their own side, and leagued themselves with the other delete voters out of a common end goal, but otherwise didn't necessarily share the same feelings. We "editors" can only "go on at extreme length" because there are equally vocal editors on the other side to hit the ball back. It's not like we were badgering every person who was in favor of deleting; we went on, you went on, we went on, you went on... It does take two to "go on at extreme length". You and I contributed significantly and equally to the controversy. Equazcion (talk) 03:40, 1 Nov 2009 (UTC)
              • Prolonged disagreement between a couple of editors on an AfD page, again, does not mean that the AfD decision was controversial in any way. DRV is intended for AfD decisions that were controversial, not for AfDs that had lengthy arguments on the AfD page. By your reasoning, any AfD could be turned into a legitimate DRV candidate simply by dint of one editor arguing at great length on the AfD page. And, in fact, if other editors actually respond to that first editor, then they ensure that the AfD is "controversial", even if there are 30 editors !voting "delete", and just one !voting "keep". In reality, of course, this is not the case. DRV is not AfD2. The fact that you and a couple of others have argued at length both at the AfD and here does not in any way make this a controversial AfD decision. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • It's again not my contention that the closing was necessarily controversial, nor that controversy at AfD is reason to bring it to DRV; only that if controversy is present at AfD, the closing should spell out its rationale. And, regardless of the vocal editors on both side, the issue was controversial regardless. It was not an obvious enough decision as to warrant the briefest of closings. Equazcion (talk) 04:09, 1 Nov 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse - Consensus seemed pretty clear in this, a rationale would have been nice but isn't required by any policy, so the closing admin can't be held responsible at DRV for not providing one. My suggestion would be to suggest a policy change requiring a rationale for closing a discussion x length/x amount of participants/x amount of differing views or whatever standard you can come up with if you don't want to risk a closure such as this one again. VegaDark (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for reference, there is a proposal on this subject being discussed right now. --RL0919 (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think your statement reflects the current precedent. There may be no policy requiring rationale in controversial cases, but the established practice has certainly been that. Practice is proof of consensus after all. Equazcion (talk) 21:05, 27 Oct 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn There was clearly no consensus. I'm not going to argue the merits of the case now, although I think them clear enough -- that the only reason for deletion was because of a decision to reverse the rule that we are NOT CENSORED, both in respect to using material from whatever source, and the desire to avoid including material that by it nature might speak poorly about an ethnic group (not that i think it actually did, just that it was perceived to do so.). Just simply that there was no consensus. A closure without a detailed rationale in a case liket his where one was prepared to find a dubious consensus is essential, whether or not specified--just common sense in a contentious debate. ` DGG ( talk ) 22:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DGG, though you say you're "not going to argue the merits of the case now", that's exactly what you've done. There was an obvious consensus for deleting, basic arithmetic will tell you that. As for your NOT CENSORED argument, it wasn't relevant, since no-one was trying to censor anything; many people noted that some of the material might well be appropriate in different articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "There was an obvious consensus for deleting, basic arithmetic will tell you that." Au contraire. Deletion is "not decided based on headcount, but on the strength of the arguments presented." Basic arithmetic tells us precisely nothing about deletion discussions. Fences&Windows 04:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • But both sides quoted what how they thought policy applied in this case. Both sides appeared to have arguments supporting their conclusions. Now, I could say that the "keep" arguments were considerably weaker, and you could say that the "delete" arguments were considerably weaker. That, however, is not really relevant; what matters is that both sides made comprehensible arguments citing policy, and the clear obvious consensus of all those !votes regarding policy was to delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jayjg--see apophasis. Chick Bowen 03:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak overturn/Comment: Weak overturn for the various reasons people used about censorship on wikipedia, as will discuss below. First, anything that can be proved statistically - like the number of Jews in Hollywood or any other profession and even lists of who is in what positions of power should not in itself be controversial, but rather how it is used should be the issue. To use it to say "Jews are bad" is obviously bigoted and unencyclopedic. In another context, if presented by a WP:RS to show why, for example, Palestinians can't get a big budget Al Nabka movie produced in Hollywood it would be encyclopedic. (Of course it seems like you can't even keep an Al Nabka article on wikipedia. Obviously there are Jews who boast there are Jews in/or in control of Hollywood, even if tongue in cheek, like Joel Stein and his more serious responses in 2008.) So I have a problem with saying it is ONLY a canard. I didn't read the actual article carefully/skimmed, so can't comment in detail on it. Any such article might need another name to reflect better the WP:RS listing of any real controversies, especially propoganda effect of pro-Israel films, should such wp:rs be found. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carol, DRV is for commenting on whether or not the AfD was closed properly, not about the merits of the article itself, or various other unrelated topics. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, Carol, it's quite inappropriate for you to significantly change your comment after someone has already responded to it. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The closer got this just right. Consensus is measured by policy based arguments not headcount and there was no credible policy based argument and the coakrack arguments were compelling. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean "no credible policy based argument to keep"? Coatrack is not policy, and please explain precisely how coatrack applied. Presenting reliable sources discussing the topic in depth is implictly a reference to WP:V, no? Does policy-based argument really need to be spoonfed in AfD debates? Fences&Windows 04:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I have no idea why the closer wouldn't want to go through and separate the legitimate from the illegitimate arguments (joke!), but I think deletion was the only reasonable result. Per WP:Coatrack and related principles, the article combined a lot of distinct material under the umbrella of a giant controversy, where no significant amount of reliable sourcing supported this framework. It isn't that the ideas are alleged to be antisemitic, but that the sourcing does not support an umbrella article pulling together these topics (i.e., discrimination against blacks, Jewish history, ethnic resentment, and some idle chat regarding such resentment). This led some to say that the combination of the article into this form is antisemitic. I think this is too quick to assume bad faith, and actually tends to obscure the policy point which could equally be described as WP:OR via original synthesis. But the material is much better placed in separate articles. Mackan79 (talk) 08:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse As I argued in the AfD itself, I can't see how a full article can be an appropriate level of depth for this subject, which should recieve small mentions on the Hollywood and Antisemitism articles. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 22:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Is this review some sort of exercise in time wasting? The consensus spoke for itself. JBsupreme (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the majority of those who spoke then, and for that matter who have spoken above, are in effect saying that NPOV does not apply to articles about things like anti-semitism. As NPOV is a core policy, such votes must be disregarded. The attempts to say that an article topic as well-sourced as this is non-notable are totally unreal--what is I think really meant is that the article makes people uncomfortable. That sort of basis is a direct violation of an equally important core policy, NOT CENSORED--which applies to politics as well as sex. Not that we should promote bigotry, but we need to present it objectively. Readers will form their own judgement from there and I am in no fear they will judge it wrong (those few who do are pre-existing bigots, and are not going to change their mind in any case). I recognize this is a lost cause about this particular article, but the refusal to follow principle astounds me. I suppose the longer here, the more unpleasant surprises one gets. DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not their argument, that's your strawman argument on their behalf. In fact, they argued the exact opposite; that the structure of the article made NPOV impossible. If one were to use your reasoning, then in fact, all the "keep" "votes must be discarded". Jayjg ^(talk) 00:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the keep votes perhaps. But there were arguments from both sides that weren't based on coatrack and allegations of POV-pushing; people who didn't get all hot-headed about the specific topic and focused on other things instead, like a callous, emotionless, infuriatingly-objective weighing of policy concerns. Those are the ones to pay attention to. The rest could probably be disregarded, or at least given much less weight. Equazcion (talk) 03:21, 1 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Much has been made of !voters referring to COATRACK in their delete arguments. But, as has been explained clearly more than once, COATRACK is merely a shorthand way of describing how an article can fundamentally and structurally violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. Yes, it's just an essay, but it's also a shorthand for an argument about policy. Thus those invoking it cannot be simply dismissed as not having "policy concerns". It is well worth reading one such editor's explanation. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, some editors did offer good reasons, but I misspoke in implying that all coatrack arguments should be disregarded. The closer should have distinguished between those who were just repeating what they saw and/or were unduly influnced by the subject matter, and the ones who were making a cold analysis. Equazcion (talk) 03:46, 1 Nov 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse (recommended deletion). however, im disappointed that there is no mention of this canard in the article on antisemitic canards we are redirected to. i think this is an important concept that should get some mention there. Im always a little disappointed when there isnt a thorough explanation given for a deletion, but i understand that its not necessary. the original proposer for deletion says the article improved. i didnt see that improvement, may have missed it. if any admin reviews the final article and finds real content, can it at least be put in the canard article? and for the record, i didnt recommend deletion as a projewish person, though the article to my reading was (perhaps unconsciously) crypto-antisemitic, but that it was to my reading hopelessly unredeemable in structure and style. However, it seems hard to pin down reasons for deletion when they are this complex and subtle. hmm, feels like im a rabbi debating the talmud/torah/tanakh (or a jesuit debating the old and new testament, to be fair and balanced) Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. I had no occasion to see the article, but most delete arguments complained of coatrack without further explanation; other arguments (including the nom) were worried about POV and other problems that were entirely manageable by editing, not deletion. Since the deletion policy says explicitly that: If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. , the impression I have from the AfD is that this is the case, and the page should be restored. --Cyclopia^talk 21:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish inventors (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Absolutely no consensus existed for the elimination of this category in the discussion (or the previous discussion) and thus the closing represents the sort of abuse on the part of closing admins that has become endemic to our project. By evidence of the discussion, the category needs to be recreated immediately and the closing admin censured for such abuse. Further, we have had several years worth of the targeting for elimination of Jewish-related categories, of which this is the most recent example. No matter what the actual discussion says, some closing admins have allowed their personal view to insist and act at all costs to see that Jewish-related cats are eliminated, despite the fact that discussion did not support such elimination. Badagnani (talk) 06:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The opinions were very divided. The decision of the closing editor was listify. Indeed we now have List of Jewish inventors. I myself was inclined towards a keep, mostly because I suspected pointy behavior in the nomination of that specific nominator. I would still be slightly in favor of having this category, as I think history and sources prove its relevance. Apart from that I think that in view of the widely diverging opinions the wisest course of action would have been "If in doubt, don't delete", as stated in this very discussion. I would like to add, on a personal note, that I do not envy the editor who closed this discussion, and I think his closing comment shows he made his decision judiciously and sincerely. At the same time we can not close our eyes to the fact that around the time of that nomination we saw several pointy nominations in relation with Jewish categories Even on Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Heritage (which lies at the basis of the nomination) one specific editor, who since has left Wikipedia, was engaged in tendentious editing. Debresser (talk) 10:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Badagnani, why did you wait over 4 months before bringing this to DRV? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• First, I had no idea this category was yet again brought up for deletion, because it was not properly advertised in the proper places (such as WPETHNIC), until it was entirely depopulated a day or two ago, something we've become quite used to in regard to Jewish-related categories over the past few years. Badagnani (talk) 05:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• And why was the closing admin not at minimum informed of this nomination? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• overturn to no consensus I don't see any consensus in that discussion. I would like to complement the closer on the very clear closing statement however. Hobit (talk) 13:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• As so often with CfD, we have a closure in flagrant disregard of the discussion that preceded it. Overturn to no consensus.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as no consensus I'm becoming more and more baffled as to how admins put their thumbs (and feet) on the scale to tip consensus in their preferred direction, but this CfD, for all its discussion, did not reach a consensus to delete. As a general rule, we desperately need closing admins who can recognize when there is no consensus and close on that basis, rather than trying to cast a supervote to justify their personal preferences and biases, rather than the reasoned votes cast by actual participants. Alansohn (talk) 17:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn no consensus I second the opinions of other participants and am happy I am not the only one noticing the all-powerful attitude of many admins (see my comment at DelRev article above this one). Being a fairly recent editor, I am not in the know of how to address this, but is the adminship process flawed? Does just anyone become admin after many contribs? Do we need more stringent admin rules? What gives? Turqoise127 (talk) 21:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I frankly can not see how this close is connected to the debate, even under the rather expansive theory of admin discretion I'm subscribing to. Overturn to no consensus. Tim Song (talk) 02:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. Some of the "delete" arguments were irrelevant as well. For example "Being an inventor is not limited to any particular race, religion, nationality or ethnicity" could be used to argue for the deletion of "Irish inventors", "American inventors", and so on as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus, as there was none. Stifle (talk) 09:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. The closing admin's arguments were good ones, but they do not reflect the discussion. It should have been a !vote instead of a closing statement. --RL0919 (talk) 14:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. simple enough. The admin process is not flawed--the occasional actions of some admins is, and the review process here exists to fix some of them. Most other problems at CfD can be solved by greater participation. to prevent ownership by a small group of regulars. DGG ( talk ) 22:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Karla foxnews.jpg (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

There was no consensus for deletion. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The argument that the image was required to show that LaVey had appeared on Fox News was invalidated by the addition of a reference. Once that was done the closure seems entirely appropriate. Kevin (talk) 05:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - Despite the above comment, the evidence (the discussion itself) clearly shows that there was no consensus for deletion. We must all, even admins, uphold our own community's standards regarding discussions and abide by them rather than making up our own conclusions based on the personal preference of the closing admin. Badagnani (talk) 06:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a very strong proponent of that view, but non-free media rules are pretty clear here and we don't just count !votes, we weigh them against policy and guidelines. Once the only basis for keeping the picture was removed (by supplying a reference that did the same thing) there was no solid !vote to keep that had a leg to stand on. Hobit (talk) 13:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (my own deletion) As Kevin says above, the only argument for keeping the image was that it was being used to illustrate an event for which no other references could be found, while the arguments for deletion included the (very strong) argument that it is an unfree image being used not to discuss the network or television show, and only loosely being used to discuss the person's appearance on television. In fact, since it was in the upper-right of the article, it was being used more for identification of the subject than commentary on her television appearance, which is not allowed under our non-free content policies. Once the text reference was found, that reason for keeping was no longer a strong argument. Deletion discussions are not simply votes, the arguments must be weighed and examined through the lens of policy. That's what I did. kmccoy (talk) 09:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - What's the problem? You said you needed this image as a reference, now that another reference has been found the image clearly fails wp:nfcc. Which is not negotiable. Garion96 (talk) 10:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse though closer should have provided a closing statement in this case. Policy arguments for deletion here are very strong (though I largely disagree with said policies). Hobit (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The statement was in the deletion log. Sorry that wasn't made clear. kmccoy (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, I'd not noticed that. I'd encourage you to have it in the closing statement too in the future. Hobit (talk) 03:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, per Hobit, with whose view I absolutely concur in all respects.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Close was consistent with policy. Tim Song (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. None of the criteria in WP:NFCC were met. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, closure reflected policy correctly. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WorkTime (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Optimising Software used in several articles, with many references Rirunmot 01:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: malformed AfD link fixed. Misplaced {{DRVNote}} removed. Tim Song (talk) 01:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The discussion could not have been closed any other way. Tim Song (talk) 01:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Accurate interpretation of consensus at that discussion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:i.e #8,316 downloads in this independent site:[2] and an independent source:[3] Rirunmot 02:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• DRV isn't AfD round 2. You had ample time to present your argument during the deletion discussion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There was one good reference found in the AfD. One more and I'd say we'd meet WP:N. So endorse but encourage interested parties to rewrite when another solid reliable source shows up. Hobit (talk) 02:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hadn't notice the early close. Given the drama associated with a 6 hour early close just recently early closures may not be wise. That said, this closure couldn't go any other way. So a minnow tossed a Cirt with a suggestion that waiting 168 hours in the future would be wise. Hobit (talk) 03:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The close is clearly in line with the discussion outcome. Kevin (talk) 06:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Am I right in thinking Cirt closed that somewhat early?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 13 hours and 35 minutes early, I believe. Not convinced that the early close affected the outcome, though. Tim Song (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do see that point, and I have some sympathy with it, but I'm not thrilled with the idea of a close 13 hours early being endorsed here. I feel that sends entirely the wrong message to AfD closers.

      If Cirt had been an hour or two early, I think I would've overlooked it, but I believe I must take the view that 13 hours early is clear error. Procedural overturn and relist.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • No sense dragging out an AfD with no chance of coming out "keep". That's what WP:SNOW was written to cover. Powers ^T 17:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is clear error, but it is also harmless error. Tim Song (talk) 19:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not convinced three responses is sufficient to invoke WP:SNOW.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • To close after a day of debate? Absolutely not; to close after ~93% of debate time has elapsed? I think that's okay. Tim Song (talk) 02:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Early closure does not appear to have adversely affected the debate, but strongly discourage early closures in future. Process is important. Stifle (talk) 09:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Now it is clear (consensus: Endorse) . How to do to start a review based on the newly found sources?

Rirunmot 12:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Write a sourced draft of the article in your userspace (eg here: User:Rirunmot/WorkTime). When you have finished writing the draft including the sources, bring it back here for discussion (i.e. open a new DRV), but please don't do this until you have a draft you feel confident with.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus, defaulting to keep. Jake should not have been the one to close this, given his vote on the previous DRV. If that wasn't enough, his unilateral change to the policy page while this was ongoing makes it even more shady. I'm willing to accept that Jake did it in good faith, but he should not have been the closer, and should have discussed the change before making it. The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are not commenting on the right DRV, I believe. Tim Song (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right, I'm not sure how that got there. The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]