Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 11

11 July 2007

Category:Signatory of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism"

Category:Signatory of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

• • • PLEASE NOTE that the nominator has engaged in one-sided canvassing in order to influence and "vote stack" this debate. >Radiant< 08:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
      • • I made exactly four notifications of this review. One was to Radiant! themselves, as was required, one was to an editor that had also queried Radiant!'s closure and with whom I had discussed calling a DRV, one was to an admin with whom that editor had discussed the closure and one was to the Category's parent article talkpage: Talk:A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism (oddly enough the original CFD was not notified to that talkpage or to anywhere else by its nominator). To call this "canvassing" appears to me to be unwarranted and in violation of WP:AGF. YMMV Hrafn42 11:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
          • I'd say Radiant's accusation of canvassing is a totally unwarranted attack on Hrafn42. Mentioning the DRV on the talk page of the parent article is the correct way to go - and something that should have been done when the article was nominated for deletion. Hrafn42 discussed doing this with other editors - if you have a conversation with someone about whether to file a DRV it would be extremely odd to fail to inform them that you actually did. And telling Radiant himself - I'd call that polite, but if Radiant sees it differently, then I suppose people should respect his opinion and not inform him when his deletions are contested. Guettarda 14:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No consensus for deletion. Opinion was evenly divided between Evolution/Creationism regulars (who were all for keeping) and CFD regulars (who were all for deletion). On a request for reconsideration, the closing Admin refused, claiming that the "delete" side had the stronger arguments, but the "keep" side dispute this claim, the basis for which is insufficiently clear-cut to count as anything more than the closing Admin's personal opinion. Hrafn42 17:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Controlling policies appear to be:

• WP:OCAT (the only 'overcategorisation' alleged was "not defining" and this allegation was disputed)
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion (requirement for rough consensus)
• WP:DGFA#Rough consensus

Hrafn42 18:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 5#Category:Signatory of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" Hrafn42 18:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: as far as I can ascertain, none of the 'keep' arguments employed arguments contained in WP:AADD (even were that essay to be considered a policy or guideline), and so cannot be discounted for that reason. Hrafn42 18:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Question Could you please link to the discussion? I don't see a link here. Shalom ^Hello 18:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

  Comment Here's the previous discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_5#Category:Signatory_of_.22A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism.22 Odd nature 18:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn Deleted on shaky grounds. As noted there was no consensus for deletion, only by discounting a large number of comments from credible editors and admins did the closing admin justify deletion, citing an essay, WP:AADD, as trumping Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus. As for the category itself, it is an appropriate category per Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion. Odd nature 18:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per the closing admin's explanation: Signing a document is not a defining characteristic, no matter how you twist it. If people think the list clutters the article, that is not automatic grounds for making a category out of the clutter. A list article would arguably be better, as it could e.g. include relevant degrees held by the signing people. The balance of arguments was clear to justify the deletion. --Kbdank71 18:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: This argument for it not being defining amounts to little more than an argument from personal incredulity. Numerous arguments against a list were discussed including that it already exists on the DI website, and that most of the signatories of this full list aren't notable. Additionally, the DI full list only contains the degree of a small minorityhalf of signatories, making a list that comprehensively contains the "relevant degree" problematical. Hrafn42 18:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't understand. The reason against a list was that most of the signatories aren't notable? What was expected with a category, then? If a person isn't notable, they wouldn't be in the encyclopedia, and therefore wouldn't be in the category. Was the point of the category to have an incomplete list of signatories? At least with a list, you could add every signatory, notable or not. Ergo, a complete list. --Kbdank71 18:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

A complete list exists on the DI website. Only those leaders of the movement or those who are otherwise noteworthy are included with separate articles on WP.--Filll 19:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

And there is the defining characteristic argument again. If they are leaders of the movement or otherwise noteworthy, then they are defined by being leaders of the movement or being otherwise noteworthy. They aren't notable because they signed a document. Lots of people signed my high school yearbook, but there isn't a category about them. --Kbdank71 19:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Kdbank, just a reminder that Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Instructions says "Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information)." BTW, what the Discovery Institute does with the list (like running it in a full page ad in the New York Times) very much impacts the visibility and notability of those who sign it. That objection holds no water. Odd nature 19:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"Was the point of the category to have an incomplete list of signatories?" As with any category on wikipedia, this category will only contain the members who both (1) fit the category criteria and (2) are sufficiently notable to warrant articles. A category of 'Chicago Politicians' would not contain some crank who ran for Chicago City Council in 1966, got one vote and died the next year in complete obscurity. If you want the full list, it already exists on the DI site (and may be subject to copyright), if you want to find out who on the list is notable (e.g. so you can read the articles on them, or so that you can interview them for a newspaper article on the SDFD), a category divides the chaff from the wheat nicely. Hrafn42 02:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Reinstate: When this list is complete, I would expect 100 or more of the present 700 or so signatories to have WP web pages. The fact that signing the list is the defining characteristic of their careers, summarizing their outlook and prospects. They have decided, at substantial personal risk, to help the Discovery Institute with its public relations campaign. For a casual reader of Wikipedia, this identifier will enable them to understand the career trajectory and beliefs of the signatory. It will also easily direct the reader back to other signatories, and the Discovery Institute and their public relations campaigns. A list is good, but it is only valuable when the reader already knows about the campaign and the DI. A category is better or a useful adjunct to a list because it succinctly and clearly lets the reader understand the beliefs, orientation and agenda of a subject whose WP article they come across. This signing is not a trivial act, like joining the American Physical society, but an indication of the interests and commitment of the signatory to a special cause. Signing the list can end a career, effectively. Signing the list can mean one has to change jobs. Signing the list can mean persecution and ostracism. Signing the list can indicate the reliability of the scientific judgement of the signatory. I would therefore ask that this category be reinstated.--Filll 19:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• overturn many arguments were given as to why this should be a category rather than a list which were simply ignored by the closing admin. As Fill has more than adequately explained above, this is a major issue and the signing of the list is very a very notable thing. Admins should not close anything based simply on their own lack of knowledge about a controversy in question. JoshuaZ 20:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - closing admin correctly weighed the arguments on both sides. Keepers argued: if this is deleted then ID advocates and Discovery Institute fellows might be next; when everyone who signed has an article there will be lots of articles; it's useful; and signing the document is a defining characteristic of the signers. Contrary to what was said in the DRV nom, the majority of these arguments are indeed arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and while it's true that ATA is not policy it does correctly identify arguments that are not particularly persuasive, as these were not particularly persuasive. The only substantive argument, that it's a defining characteristic, was strongly disputed by a number of people and in the face of the valid arguments from the deletionators and the weak and disputed arguments from the keepers the closing admin correctly closed with a delete. Otto4711 22:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

  Thanks for admitting that ATA is not policy. The point remains that it correctly identifies arguments that are not persuasive is matter of opinion, not policy. In fact, the applicable guideline, Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus, makes no such exceptions for the quality of the arguments as WP:ATA calls for. Again, policies and guidelines trump essays everytime. And whether the arguments made were not particularly persuasive is also a matter of personal opinion. Personal opinion is simply no justification for such sweeping discounts of so many comments from credible editors and admins. Odd nature 22:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

  You really might want to give WP:3P a read. Especially since you seem to rely extremely heavily on policy, which is not the be all and end all of wikipedia. And you don't have to remind me, 3P is only an essay. But then again, WP:ONLYESSAY is only an essay also. Bit of a catch-22 if you ask me, but there you are. Bottom line, the closing admin's job is to determine the strength of the arguments, as not all arguments are of equal weight. If they were, this would be nothing more than a vote count, and that's not what we do. --Kbdank71 02:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: Otto4711 stretches WP:AADD in an attempt to shoehorn 'keep' arguments into it:
    • "What about article x?" -- this was not employed as a basis for a 'keep' opinion, but rather as a counter-argument to 'delete' arguments.
    • "This number is big" -- this was not employed as an argument that the category is notable, but rather that a list would be unwieldy. The converse "this number is small" argument was employed by the 'delete' side.
    • "It's useful" -- I will concede that I missed this one in checking the 'keep' arguments. I will note however that only one editor employed this argument bare, as the basis for their 'keep' opinion (with one other editor basing their opinion on usability + notability), and that WP:AADD itself states "In spite of this, there are some times when "usefulness" can be at the base of a valid argument for inclusion, especially when referring to information that is not only of localized interest (as in the New York phone listing example) or a matter of opinion as in the restaurant guide example. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how broad a segment of the population will consider a piece of information "useful." Information found in tables in particular is focused on usefulness to the reader." Hrafn42 02:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Arguing that if one category is deleted others might be is classic WAX. Arguing for the category because it will eventually have lots of stuff in it is a big number argument and even if it's not it's completely unworkable. All sorts of categories that could have lots of things in them are deleted. Certainly arguing "it's useful" isn't an automatic death sentence but I dispute the notion that a category of some but not all of the people who signed a position paper, even one that's contentious, is so useful that a list of all of the people wouldn't suffice. Otto4711 15:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• "if this is deleted then ID advocates and Discovery Institute fellows might be next" & "Arguing that if one category is deleted others might be is classic WAX." I just checked and this argument had in fact (contrary to my earlier claim) been used as part of an editor's 'keep' position, however as that editor later changed their position to 'listify', this editor's original position had already been discounted anyway.
• "Arguing for the category because it will eventually have lots of stuff in it is a big number argument..." No it is not. WP:BIGNUMBER only explicitly discounts arguments that argue "big number therefore notable". An argument for splitting a page because it has a "big number" of words in it, is likewise not a "big number argument".

Hrafn42 17:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion - not only was there no consensus to delete, there is also no evidence that Radiant actually made any effort to understand the arguments made in favour of keeping the category. His closing comment echoes the deletion nom. The only explanation (only one I can find) that he gave when questioned WP:AADD; he does not bother to explain how the arguments in favour of a keep are "fallacious". A deletion made when there is no consensus to delete, and without a valid explanation, should be overturned. Guettarda 03:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per Guettarda and odd nature. Clearly there was no consensus, and I for one am alarmed to hear that my comment was discounted on specious grounds in the original CFD. I'm certain that if the majority of the community knew how essays like WP:ATA are being misapplied to subvert policy and discount their opinions, they'd have a similar feeling. This is indicative of a bigger problem that needs to be aired. FeloniousMonk 05:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment and a challenge To the gainsayers of this category: Please explain to the community here how this category, Category:Signatory of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism", is any different from Category:Signers_of_the_U.S._Declaration_of_Independence. And before you try to make the argument, I'm going to quote Kdbank71 above: "Signing a document is not a defining characteristic, no matter how you twist it." So unless you're going to cede that point, don't bother making that argument or claiming that there's qualitative or quantitive differences between the two. Answer this convincingly, and I'll change my comment to 'endorse.' FeloniousMonk 05:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. >Radiant< 08:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    • No Radiant!, a legitimate counterexample is ALWAYS a legitimate refutation of an argument (in this case the argument that "Signing a document is not a defining characteristic, no matter how you twist it"). WP:AADD quite simply cannot trump the basic rules of logic. Hrafn42 16:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll give it a shot. Category:Signers_of_the_U.S._Declaration_of_Independence contains every signer. All of them have articles, and are notable for something other than signing the Declaration, the least of which is simply being elected to the Continental Congress, but others were Presidents, Supreme Court Justices, Governors, flew kites in lightning storms, etc. By contrast, Category:Signatory of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" would never have contained every person who signed it. Regarding signing, User:Filll said For most of these people, that is the only reason they are notable. [1] and User:Hrafn42 said that the notable people that were in the category were notable generally for being notorious fringe scientists, pseudo-scientists and/or cranks [2]. Now I'm not saying that signing the Dissent wasn't important for every single one of these people. But it's obviously not that important or every one of them would have articles stating "This person signed 'A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism." And so that category only tells a portion of the story. It doesn't capture the magnitude of the sheer amount of people who signed. As noted, a list could capture every name, whether they are notable or not. The Declaration signers category does tell the whole story of who signed. --Kbdank71 15:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Your argument just ceded ""Signing a document is not a defining characteristic, no matter how you twist it." Hrafn42 16:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
      • How does stating "are notable for something other than signing the Declaration" cede that? --Kbdank71 16:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
        • You changed your ground from "signing a document is not a defining characteristic, no matter how you twist it" to "signing a document is not a defining characteristic, unless all signatories are notable", thus ceding your original point. Having all the signers being notable is one way to "twist it", and having conceded the existence of one legitimate "twist" you have retreated into a position where you need to argue the legitimacy of each "twist" on a case-by-case basis. Hrafn42 17:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
          • You might want to re-read what I wrote. I don't believe you'll find that I typed "signing a document is not a defining characteristic unless all signatories are notable" or anything even close to it. Their defining characteristic is that they are Presidents, Congressmen, Justices, etc, not that they signed the Declaration. If I were to say those men were notable simply because they signed the Declaration, then I'd have ceded the point. --Kbdank71 18:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
            • I read what you wrote. My paraphrase may have been imperfect, but the point remains. "Signing a document is not a defining characteristic, no matter how you twist it" became "signing a document is not a defining characteristic unless all signatories are notable". This is a form of "spurious argumentation" known as a Special pleading. This in turn demonstrates why your original assertion is nothing more than an argument from personal incredulity. Oh and if you insist on appending taunting edit summaries like "Got anything else..." to such flimsy logic you are likely to get your head handed to you by even the wimpiest lightweight of a regular from the Evolution/Creationism area of articles. Hrafn42 03:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Overturn. The admins decision was based on his personal, strongly subjective opinion about the merits of the arguments rather than an objective reading of the community consensus. The last thing we need is admins deciding their opinions are more important than the opinion of the community (unfortunately, we seem to have a noticable number of this undesirable thing). Loom91 07:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse self, because CFD is not a headcount. The "keep" side many arguments that are fallacious, not compelling, or "arguments to avoid". For instance,
  • "the article would get cluttered" (so make two articles) ... "There are also categories about... (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) - Northfox
  • "When the list is complete, it will have many more than 30 entries." (so? category size is not an issue here)... "For most of these people, that is the only reason they are notable." (if that's the case they will likely be deleted on AFD) - Fill
  • "Being a signatory to this petition is a strong and verifiable indicator of affiliation to the Intelligent design movement." (so put those people in the cats for "intelligent design movement!) - Hrafn42
  • "This is critical reference material for several articles" (no, we reference articles with citations, not categories) - Orangemarlin
  • "It's useful" (WP:USEFUL) - Feloniousmonk, Oddnature
• And on the other hand, we have the WP:OCAT guideline, plus the more important fact that a LIST is a more comprehensive way of covering this information since it can include the degrees of the people on it, the places they work, and other relevant information, which of course the cat doesn't. Also, since not all of the signatory are notable enough to have articles, the list can be complete and the category by definition cannot. The full list is here, by the way. >Radiant< 08:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Radiant! represents "It's useful" as a direct (and ellipsis-free) quotation of Feloniousmonk & Oddnature. I would suggest neither of them said those exact words and that Radiant! is cherry-picking and caricaturing the 'keep' arguments in an attempt to make them look weaker than they really were. On the subject of "fallacious" arguments, Radiant!'s "the list can be complete and the category by definition cannot" takes the cake. The complete list already exists Radiant!, why bother to recreate it? This list contains only information on "the degrees of the people on it" OR "the places they work", almost never both, and I don't see editors bothering to track down that non-publicly-available information (even if the tracking down itself wasn't OR) on 600-odd non-notables. On the other hand the 'category automatically links to the articles of all the notable signatories, giving accessibility to a full range of "other relevant information" on them. The full list already exists to give spartan information on the non-notables, a category would give easy access to fuller information on the notables, along with placing a valid question-mark over their scientific credibility on their articles. Hrafn42 11:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• So you want this category so you can use it to push a POV about the signatories' scientific credibility. I kinda wish you'd said that in the original CFD. Can I change my vote here to double-super endorse? Otto4711 15:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• That's a baseless accusation Otto4711. Whether a person has signed an anti-evolutionary petition is a matter of fact not POV. A person having rejected well-established science can lead scientifically-informed people to doubt the person's grasp of science, completely independently of my viewpoint. No POV-pushing is needed on my part, merely the facts and a scientifically-informed reader. Conversely, a Creationist reader would most probably trust the signatory more. Hrafn42 16:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Wanting a category because it puts a "question-mark" on those categorized is POV pushing. There are other ways to make readers aware of these peoples' opinions or beliefs about Creationism or Intelligent Design that are NPOV, we don't need categories that try to score intellectual points. Otto4711 16:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Categories place legitimate question-marks (with sections of the community, large and small) all the time. Most people would not support a member of Category:Neo-Nazis for political office (but fellow Neo-Nazis most probably would). Informing readers of a biographed person's verifiable affiliations is not a NPOV violation. Your accusation of POV-pushing is baseless. Hrafn42 16:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Categories may indeed put question marks on people all the time. That doesn't mean that categories for the purpose of creating those question marks are anything other than rank POV-pushing. Otto4711 19:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion Per Joshua, FM, Guettarda, and Odd Nature. Also, what's with the canvassing accusation Radiant? Either prove it -- and make sure your evidence is rock-solid and air-tight -- or withdraw your comment. I know that I was not "canvassed" by anyone, and letting people know that a CfD in which they had participated is undergoing DRV is not canvassing. Trying to shrug off your mistake in deleting the cat by alleging that someone else is "not playing fair" (which is the gist of your accusation, is it not?) is ludicrous at best. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn I do not see consensus, or anything that could reasonably be taken as consensus. For example, one recurring argument was the category should not have been placed in the super-category it was in, which is easily dealt with., and not by deletion. DGG (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: To date on this review I have endured a wild accusation (WP:AGF) and taunting (WP:CIVIL) from regular CFD admins and a fairly flimsy accusation of POV-pushing (WP:AGF) from a CFD regular. I would request that this behaviour be taken in conjunction with the way CFD regulars conducted the original CFD (failure to notify, failure to cite specific policies even when pressed, the way the debate was closed) and ask yourselves if this creates a forum where substantive consultation can occur. You don't tend to stick around as a regular editor of the Evolution/Creationism area of articles without a strong tendency to stick up for your opinions, so such tactics haven't worked on this occasion. I do however feel that they may tend to intimidate into acquiescence editors from more mild-mannered areas of wikipedia. Hrafn42 03:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, well-reasoned close by closing admin and Wikipedia is not MySpace. CFD is not a vote or headcount. The arguments to keep were not very persuasive, and I wonder if there was canvassing there (there sure is here). --Coredesat 06:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Coredesat: if you are going to go around repeating wild and unfounded accusations I would suggest that you stick to ones that at least lack a publicly available refutation ("Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries" comes to mind). Anybody can view my contributions log and see exactly who I told about this review. This is precisely the type of crude CFD-regular initimidation I was talking about above. Hrafn42 09:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not a CFD regular, and you should remain civil about the matter. Simply attacking any users who come along and endorse is exactly what you should not be doing here. --Coredesat 10:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
      • My apologies, you are an AfD regular, not a CFD one. That does not however in any way mitigate your wild and unfounded accusation. It is absurd for you to complain about "attacking" users when you attacked me first. Hrafn42 11:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - The discussion was close to evenly split between "merge/delete" and "keep". The closing administrator therefore decided to consider the arguments given by both sides rather than use a straight head count, and he found the advocates for deletion more persuasive. (Note: If Hrafn42 has complaints about the behavior of specific users, he should post a notice at WP:ANI.) Dr. Submillimeter 08:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am not complaining about "specific users" but about a pervasive culture of intimidation and exclusion from CFD-regulars. You quite clearly don't want editors from other parts of wikipedia coming along to express an opinion and mess up your nice little closed shop by venturing an opinion on whether their categories are legitimate. This is, I am assuming, the basis for the completely spurious accusations of canvassing -- if any editors come along and mount an effective defence against your supremacy, then it must be because they're being canvassed. I may report this at WP:ANI, but that does not prevent me from commenting on this ongoing pattern of behaviour, here -- where it is of direct relevance to the review. Hrafn42 09:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Procedure was followed and the closing admin made a reasonable judgment based on the arguments available. Shell ^babelfish 22:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion closure Radiant's choice was reasonable: content is better as a list, or as a merge to the category of Creationists. The encyclopedic significance of the Creation manifesto, while not in dispute, is also not so overwhelming as to demand comparable treatment with the Declaration of Independence. I believe the worry that the category is being employed mainly as a POV device is not ill-founded. I don't think the Creationists' manifesto would be given this extra navigational aid, but the sizable community interested in debunking it. Personally, I find this a highly laudable goal, but the WP's system of categories must remain a tool for NPOV only. In any case, the ultimate argument that governs at deletion review is, "Was the close reasonable?" I believe it was. Xoloz 04:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

List of songs whose title constitutes the entire lyrics

List of songs whose title constitutes the entire lyrics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I don't like putting up deletion reviews, but sometimes "no consensus" closes need more of a justification. There is a majority consensus for delete even if you were just to count !votes. But, alone, the discussions for delete rely on more tangible reasons (or interpretation of said) and, hence, show a stronger consensus for removal of the list even if they weren't a numeric majority. There were two legitimate "weak keeps", but the other "keep" !votes consisted of WP:INTERESTING, WP:ILIKEIT and "why delete it?" This list should have been deleted, and put with all its predecessors in the list of songs graveyard. Bulldog123 00:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn; I hate second-guessing the closing admin, but in this particular case I feel I must agree. While arguments for delete were admittedly somewhat weak (which the closing admin rightly pointed out), the keeps were even weaker, amounting to little more than WP:ILIKEIT. There might not have been consensus in numbers, but I feel there were no arguments for keep put forward that were supported by policy or guidelines. — Coren ^(talk) 02:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Disclosure: I have participated in the AfD and !voted delete there. — Coren ^(talk) 02:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse seems within admin discretion. --W.marsh 02:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse as closing admin (Am I allowed to? I'm new at this, remember? If not, just strike this through). As I told Coren on his talk page, it was late and I really should have provided an explanation. So let expand on what I told Bulldog on his talk page.

  Yes, a lot of the keep votes couldn't really put their finger on what it was that made it borderline notable. But if the delete voters are going to deride the keep votes as ILIKEIT, they should make sure their own arugments and counterarguments aren't correspondingly IDONTLIKEIT (or, in this case UNENCYC). And I see some of this emotionalism at work here: "There's an end to all this. There just has to be".

  This waters down the assessment of consensus. But I also took note of the context of the current open season on song lists (some of which do have to go). I had closed List of Halloween songs as a delete since it developed a clear consensus for it; similarly List of songs about masturbation was recently kept after a similarly robust discussion. In six days this AfD attracted rather few votes by comparison with the latter, nor a clear majority for one result as with the former, suggesting the community cares less about it.

  It also says something to me when one of the delete votes is changed to keep mid-AfD, one editor makes a very pro-keep comment after his "neutral" vote, and after a couple of "delete" votes pile up, we get a "strong keep" from a very prolific editor ... who then sees the legitimacy of his vote questioned by the nominator.

  I also see, in this DR and in the last delete vote, the implication that we should delete this because we're deleting lots of song lists. I would remind the delete voters that WP:WAX cuts both ways, further diluting a consensus for action. I do not feel that appealing to an article's status as a member of a marked category or class of articles is really a good argument for deletion; we decide these things on a case-by-case (ahem) basis.

  Basically, this discussion was all over the place: strong keeps, weak keeps, neutrals, weak deletes and strong deletes and one changed vote, and a community that generally didn't show much interest. That adds up to no consensus by my math. Daniel Case 03:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, this is all very true. Plenty of WP:WAX, WP:ILIKEIT and IDONTLIKEIT, but honestly, what else could be said about this list? It seems like there's MUCH MUCH more effort needed to delete it than keep it. It doesn't seem very neutral. Two reasonable weak keeps, and three ILIKEIT keeps already default keeps this. I think there's just an unreasonable threshold put forth. There's simply not that much to say about the content of the list, which is why all the arguments were weak to begin with. Bulldog123 04:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, such lists are trivial and borderline original research, and keep-arguments like "it's interesting" and "don't be so deletionists" are not very compelling. >Radiant< 08:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Reread the guidelines above that point out that DRV is not the place to fight it out again over the content of the article in question. Arguments are supposed to be limited to whether the closing admin made a proper decision as to consensus. I'd support relisting it to gain further consensus, though. Daniel Case 03:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per above. Half the arguments for keeping this were not based on any policy or guideline and were, as Radiant! points out, not compelling. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Also, we may want to consider just relisting this one to get some more consensus on the matter. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• endorse it will be easier to nominate this again in a few months--close within discretion. DGG (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse This is one of those cases where "no consensus" and "delete" were both correct decisions. A tie goes to the discretion of the closing admin. Shalom ^Hello 18:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete - "Stop being so deletionist" and "interesting" are uncompelling reasons for deletion. With those taken out, it's 8 to 2.5, easy concensus to delete. Will ^(talk) 23:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• endorse I would have closed this as delete but the close of no consensus was well within admin discretion. Admins are not robots. If someone has an objection they should wait a while and list it on AfD again, not try to change the forum here. JoshuaZ 03:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Meh. Personally I regard a "no consensus" close as permission to relist at any time anyway, so it doesn't make much difference. It could be relisted right now, for example. Chick Bowen 05:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC) addendum: I would have deleted it, though. Chick Bowen 05:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete per the above: stronger arguments to delete versus ilikeit, etc.... Suggest it be brought back to afd if not enough consensus forms here to overturn the decision. Eusebeus 12:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. There is a lot of focus above on the validity of the "keep"s, but I really don't think the arguments for "delete" were fully thought through either (many of them were short "listcruft", "trivia", and mere assertions of "unencyclopedic".) In this situation a "no consensus" result seems in order. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete - Mostly per Sceptre above, but all the keep entries were pretty sad. "Don't be so deletionist"? I mean honestly, isn't that what we have AfDs for? Cool Blue^{talk to me} 13:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment A lot of "Well, we can always nominate it again later" comments. But honestly, are the "keep" and "delete" rationales going to change since then? There is very little to say about a list like this, so both the keep and deletes are always going to be weak. Meaning, even if it is renominated, it will probably end in a "no consensus" too. Bulldog123 20:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per March and Case.--Epeefleche 03:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Do you mean "marsh"? Bulldog123 03:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Tx.--Epeefleche 19:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Suggestion Can this possibly be relisted then for more consensus on the matter, as suggested above? Bulldog123 03:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Why? Bull -- you suggested when you started that you hesitate to even put up a deletion review. Why in the world would you now suggest the extraordinary step of putting your deletion review request up for relisting? You yourself imply in your above comment that there is not consensus for deletion. Cleary there is now consensus to overturn the decision. Let's all get on to productive activities.--Epeefleche 19:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)