Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 October 28

28 October 2013

Wikipedia:Using Archive.is

Wikipedia:Using Archive.is (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closing administrator has failed to consider that the deletion discussion (and the entire subject of Archive.is) was the subject of both internal and external canvasing and poorly reasoned rationales for any outcome besides delete. Request to Admin to reconsider MFD outcome: User_talk:Ruslik0#Request_to_reconsider_your_closing_of_Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion.2FWikipedia:Using_Archive.is. Hasteur (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Extended content

Analysis of Viewpoints: PantherLeapord: Arguing a WP:NOTHOWTO but refuted later De728631: Initailly delete, but then waffles with a argument along the lines of WP:OTHERSTUFF Graeme Bartlett: Keep arguing along a WP:CRYSTAL line that it "might" be useful pending the outcome of the main Archive.is RFC (which is decidely against using for promotional reasons). Nyttend: Move to the Help namespace arguing that the page belongs there Hellknowz: Userfy on the grounds that the page is WP:TOOSOON for being in the policy/weight namespace of "Wikipedia" Hasteur: Userfy and strip any confering of policy weight Someone not using his real name: Delete as being a creation of a SPA/Puppet Lexein: Arguing keep on the grounds that other editors conduct (such as Kww) should be the shield that protects this page Diff used to construct summary Equazcion: Delete on the grounds that the page is attempting to draw notability and respect for the site after the site's operators were cought violating policy multiple times (running a unauthorized bot, IP sock puppets to override WP consensus, etc.) BDD: Commentary as to who would adopt the article if Userfication wins out. Both myself and Hellknowz who previously argued for Userfication declined to host. Lexein then agreed that they would host but didn't want the MFD to be closed early (after it had already ran 3 weeks longer than the standard 1 week listing period)

For these reasons, I consider it more reasonable that the joined Userfy/Delete carried the consensus of non-refuted (or top hits from Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions) and therefore ask that the Admin's consensus of Keep be overturned to either Delete or Userfy as I consider Userfy the less drastic measure than Delete. Hasteur (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC) New Summary: We had several editors argue keep reasons that are mentioned on the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, we had one editor whose conduct at the MFD was to point at other editors as the problem, we had 2 editors offer a softer alternative to deletion, and we had 2 editors who called for outright deletion. For these reasons, I assert that the rendering of consensus to keep is incorrect and that a move to user space would have been more appropriate. Hasteur (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• endorse The above is a misrepresentation of the arguments, so I would suggest that interested parties actually look at the original debate. Arguments for retention were much stronger than suggested above. If I was closing this one I would have said no consensus to delete however, rather than consensus to keep. However since this has no material difference, there is no need to overturn. I would suggest waiting for a few months, and see if this web site vanished, and then if so consider MFD again. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

  Please point out what portions I have misrepresented in the analysis. I did not say summary. Your exact words were Either this will be useful, if it turns out that the site is reliable, or the page can be changed to an explanation why not to use this archive. Please explain how that's nothing but a CRYSTAL argument? Hasteur (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

  Because WP:CRYSTAL is about predicting future events in articles, not making decisions in XFD or DELREV to defer action based on ongoing and future behavior or events. --Lexein (talk) 21:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Correction: the above is a libelous an outrageous false representation of my arguments, IMO. Holy hell. My arguments were "Keep while archive.is is in use anywhere on WP. There's no consensus to universally stop using archive.is." [1] [2] [3] [4] and [5]. Further, because any claimed "analysis" should be factual and neutral, by simple common sense, all misrepresented editors should feel free to <s>strikethrough</s> above and post diffs below, as I have done, per "Removing prohibited material such as libel" per WP:TPOC. --Lexein (talk) 21:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse - close was proper. Per WP:STICK I recommend dropping this. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 21:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse. The participants basically discussed two issues: (1) whether the page should be deleted entirely, and (2) if it should not be deleted entirely, what should be done with it. Only two participants said "yes" to the first issue, and everyone else either didn't vote (e.g. BDD) or advocated keeping in some form or another, and note that Hasteur and I are both in the latter group. On question 2, we were all over the map, and there's clearly no consensus on the second question. The close accurately reflected the discussion's clear weight toward "no" for #1 and its lack of consensus on #2. Votes for "userfy", "move to Help namespace", etc. should definitely be taken as "keep" in the sense of "don't delete", because you can't move something if you delete it. Nyttend (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
• Comment It's usually a bad idea to try and summarize other people's statements unless you're gonna be uber-anal about understanding and presenting them accurately. Whatever point you might've had could otherwise get muddied away with accusations. Anyway, looking at the actual XfD, I was slightly in shock that any consensus at all was declared. I was slightly more on the peeved end of the spectrum that the closer considered the pivotal aspect of this to be whether or not NOTHOWTO was applicable (that being the nominator's rationale). While there was consensus that NOTHOWTO was inapplicable, the vast majority of the discussion became focused elsewhere, and I felt the close didn't reflect that. As for how the close should've gone, that's a bit a head-scratcher for me -- and, I think, for most, which is probably evidenced in its having been open for so long -- and I don't feel the close reflected the lack of obvious conclusions here. I like it when people take the initiative when something like this has been in limbo for so long, but this seemed like a crass oversimplification for the sake of getting it done, which is probably why we've ended up here. The same outcome with more thought expressed regarding the bulk of the discussion probably wouldn't have attracted a DRV, although I'm going to say that I think the discussion seemed to be leaning more towards a move than anything else. equazcion → 22:17, 28 Oct 2013 (UTC)
• "Procedural note" and resulting drama moved to the talk page. equazcion → 20:39, 29 Oct 2013 (UTC)
• Comment:This is really a problem with overlapping discussions. When WP:Archive.is RFC is closed, its closure will have a profound impact on this. If the closing admin views the RFC consensus as I do, then Wikipedia:Using Archive.is can be replaced with the single word "don't". Technically, that isn't a deletion.—Kww(talk) 00:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• We could overturn to "no consensus", if you like? There's no tenable basis for overturning to "delete". However, the RFC outcome will make the whole argument moot anyway. The nominator's "summary of the arguments" deserves to be preserved for posterity----perhaps in Wikipedia:How not to begin a DRV.—S Marshall T/C 08:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Overturn (Procedural close in favour of continuing discussion at Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC). MfD is not a forum for modifying policy. I have tagged the page with {{Disputed tag|talkpage=Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC}}. Discussion should continue at Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is discussing "modifying policy" here, or at Wikipedia:Using Archive.is. This is DRV, not MfD. That's a "how to" page as categorized, not policy or guideline or information or anything else. Tag removal is in order. Tag removed. --Lexein (talk) 14:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a huge policy implication readable by unsuspecting Wikipedians. The "Keep" result on a "How to" page supports the notion that the thing is appropriate to do, and that question is seriously disputed in an ongoing RfC. The page needs a prominent link to the RfC, indicating that its entire appropriateness is challenged. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't panic. Nobody seriously thinks this Howto somehow serves as promo for Archive.is, or is somehow an undue influence at the RFC. It's rarely seen. It's no longer in Google search results? It's not there because I applied __NOINDEX__ (any results you see are already archived). It's not a public-facing article; it's just a Howto for editors. If all |archiveurl= links to archive.is are consensed to be deleted at the RFC, then WP:Using Archive.is will go away. If the RFC results in the continued use of archive.is, that WP:Using Archive.is will stay. As for a policy issue, many smart people dead set against Archive.is would have made that leap with you, if they thought it held any water.

No post-MFD tagging. It passed Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Using_Archive.is MFD, period. The dispute was resolved howto kept. Nobody brought up WP:Using Archive.is during the WP:Archive.is RFC, discussion period. Nobody has chimed in with you at this DRV, either. Tag removed. Please don't re-add it. If you're dead set against deletion, start another MFD. People do it all the time, with rarely changed results. But you'll have to wait for this DRV to end. --Lexein (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)