|
South Jersey Paranormal Research (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) (
restore |
cache |
AfD))
UNDELETE_REASON I would like to strenuously object to the criteria used to delete my group's page, South Jersey Paranormal Research. Those who voted for deletion sited that my group has no notoriety. We have repeatedly received national media attention, so I don't know how much more attention they would like to see. They don't make this clear in their "argument." Also, the voting was CLEARLY for a keep of the article, yet they deleted anyway, saying their vote meant more than those people who wanted to see the article remain. I don't understand how Wikipedia can have any credibility when the whim of one can do what he/she pleases. I am requesting the page be reinstated, as I don't feel a compelling argument was made for its deletion and the voting was for keeping the article. I felt like through the entire "discussion," that those voting for deletion just kept saying, "Not-uh." Very childish and the article was not hurting anyone, but more helping those who need our services, find us more easily. --
SusanSJPR (
talk)
19:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Comment So you want us to undelete your article because it is used to promote your group? Man, how many policies, guidelines and essays can I come up with here?
WP:COI,
WP:SPAM being the obvious.
WP:HARMLESS since "it isn't hurting anyone" is not a valid argument for retention. I would also add that AfD is not a vote, and the raw numbers don't matter, especially when numerous
WP:SPA's with obvious conflicts of interest show up to "vote" for keep. Looking over the article as it stood when it was deleted, it consisted of two halves: the first half was basically an advertisement based on the groups own website, and the second was basically "look at us! We got reported in the media!" Even if this article were restored, I think it would need a considerable rewrite.
Reso
lute
22:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- weak overturn Wow, nasty AfD. I'd have !voted keep based on
[1] being enough sources for me, but that's not the point here. Given all the multiple votes and other problems, it's a really hard call, but I'd have expected no consensus. I can see keep and delete as both vaguely plausible. As noted by Resolute the article needs a lot of love if this is overturned.
Hobit (
talk)
22:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Strong overturn Of course one must agree with Resolute on the point that the article needs work. I would like to point out the dynamics of the vote as I see them:
- First, the article was written in good faith. What is right behavior in Wikipedia is not intuitive. Rather than simply slapping around the editors who are clearly new to Wikipedia and deleting the article, it would have been more citizen-like to offer a little guidance.
- The hearthstone of Wikipedia is the concept of articles created by citizen participation. It is not appropriate to assume that the new editors have a conflict of interest.
- One of the editors who was most vocal about the new editor votes, ChildofMidnight, went right to a known anti-paranormal warrior who calls himself Science Appologist
User talk:ScienceApologist#Is nothing sacred? to ask for his help in the deletion debate. We do not know how many others he solicited, but it his is a known tactic for defeating minority groups in Wikipedia. Any argument about special interest must address the determined actions of the skeptical editors.
- The group which is the subject of the article is representative of a type of group which is fast becoming a dominant feature in our pop culture. According to Yahoo Site Explorer
[2] the site has 406 external links.
- I think the more correct action for veteran Wikipedia editors such as you is to reinstate the site with the provision that it is brought into line with Wikipedia standards, say in the next 90 day.
Tom Butler (
talk)
02:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)—
Tom Butler (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
reply
- While this might meet the definition of a SPA (editing in mainly one area), this is 500+ edits over 3+ years. We all have our own interests and his edits seem to be broad enough to not be an SPA.
Hobit (
talk)
21:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn--Consensus for deletion was not reach between established users (not all keep !votes were from new and unregistered users). --
J.Mundo (
talk)
04:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn. I've tried, but I can't come to a deletion outcome without discounting votes by established editors. -
Mgm|
(talk)
09:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse own deletion. As I explained to two users at my talk page, there were ten people suggesting deleting the article, and of the eleven people suggesting keeping it, four were new or single-purpose accounts (SusanSJPR, Tom Butler, JennaBugg, and Twostars n saturn), and four were weak keeps. As such, my feeling is that the consensus of established users was that the article should be deleted.
Stifle (
talk)
10:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse deletion This was fairly straightforward -
notability requirements have not been met. The new accounts were correctly discounted, and although their arguments for keep were quite lengthy they were not rooted in WP policy or practice. Members of the SJPR that have recently joined can work together on fixing the problems in their userspace and then ask for it to be reviewed, but none of the references presented so far have been compelling.
Verbal
chat
10:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn Wow, what a nasty AFD! We cannot go around deciding who is and is not allowed to vote. If there is a suspicion of voting more then once, then start a SSP and CU. Editors do not need to point out how many articles a user has edited or what topic they generally work on. Looking at the AFD, there was never a consensus to delete the article and it seems other editors used strong arm tactics to ram the deletion through. Plus, the AFD should have been kept open for a week for others to come and vote.
Brothejr (
talk)
10:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse: there seems to have been a number of
WP:SPA closely tied to the topic !voting for a keep (including the review nominator). I do not think it is in wikipedia's interest to pander to such campaigning. It will only encourage other interest-groups to vote-stack for their particular cause.
Hrafn
Talk
Stalk
12:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse: COI anyone? Editors admits it was an advertisment "helping those who need our services, find us more easily". Can I write about my business too?
Guyonthesubway (
talk)
15:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I'm not clear what this argument has to do with the DRV. It seems like an AfD argument (and one I would disagree with as I don't think someone wanting an article on their group means that article should be removed).
Hobit (
talk)
21:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Weak overturn to no-consensus- Yikes, that AFD got really nasty, I don't envy the closing admin. That said, I think that the fact that there were (as far as I could tell anyway) reliable sources pushes it from an obvious delete to a no-consensus.
Umbralcorax (
talk)
16:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse deletion. There is no reasons for us to maintain this
soapbox on the part of a person who is in the organization.
ScienceApologist (
talk)
16:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse I concur with
Stifle's analysis of the debate, with the debatable exception of
Tom Butler; a difference of a single editor one way or the other I do not think would change the outcome. The new accounts had their say and participated in the debate, but were ultimately unconvincing. There is nothing wrong with recreating this article if they do receive significant in-depth coverage by reliable sources. Disclosure: I expressed my opinion at this debate. -
Eldereft (
cont.)
16:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- endorse deletion, good close. A bunch of SPA's screaming notability doesn't establish notability, and just drags out the drama.
Bali ultimate (
talk)
18:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Comment As I see several editors noting it was a particularly nasty AfD, I just wanted to note that Drmies and I are friends, so he was just giving me a hard time when he referred to my psychological condition and calling me out for joking a bit in calling the group's work vital. As far as noting SPAs and such, I've seen a notation added regarding this in other debates so I thought it was appropriate to point out when a !vote is an editor's only contribution. I take it using the template designed for that purpose is okay, but commenting isn't? In regards to the deletion, I thought a no consensus would have been more appropriate as the arguments seemed to be reasonable and substantial in favor of keeping. Cheers.
ChildofMidnight (
talk)
18:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn - Afd is a discussion, not a vote. Where one "side" of the argument is demonstratably false, it should not be given additional weight. Bizarre.
Wily
D
18:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- endorse deletion AfD is a discussion, and the rational part of the discussion--the part not based on personal familiarity and support of the organization--was to delete. There was no evidence of importance presented, and the established editors here by and large agreed with that. Ir it should be relisted, or re-AfD'd after change to no consensus, it will be all the more soundly deleted now that attention has been called to it. for example, I often !vote to keep many organizations of note associated with parapsychology and the like; I didn't comment at this one, for I thought the claim to notability for a local society investigating the neighborhood haunted houses to be so patently ridiculous as to make my support for deletion unnecessary.
DGG (
talk)
22:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse The nominator's statement, and indeed her username, says it all. Wikipedia is not an advertising service.
Skinwalker (
talk)
23:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse deletion: Once again, we are presented with a deletion that was true to our core policies and guidelines. We don't allow Wikipedia to be driven by
single purpose accounts, whose sole purpose is to
spam Wikipedia with varying groups -- in this case, relating to paranormal. The Articles for Deletion discussion was just that, a discussion, and
canvassing or vote stacking is strongly discouraged; it only discounts the votes and discussions that ensued from those individuals. So are single purpose accounts, as it gives the inclination that they are here only to use Wikipedia as a vehicle to promote their otherwise
non-notable group. Votes does not necessarily garner consensus, as a mention.
seicer |
talk |
contribs
02:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse - Four editors who argued for keeping the article were new accounts. AfD is not a vote; editors have to present persuasive reasons in line with WP policy or consensus as to why the article should be kept or deleted.
South Jersey Paranormal Research doesn't meet the WP standard, and the editors who argued for deletion presented a strong case for the deletion of the article.
AdjustShift (
talk)
04:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn. There is no policy that says "outside canvassing and a proliferation of SPA's shall be dealt with harshly -- we'll stick it to them by closing the discussion in the way they don't want." Yet, that outcome seems to occur all too often. I appreciate Stifle's providing an explanation of the assessment of the numbers. I disagree as to
User:Tom Butler -- he has been here more than two years and is obviously strongly committed to paranormal views that I personally consider whacked-out, but that doesn't make him an SPA. If established users divide 10-8, there's no consensus either way.
JamesMLane
t
c
11:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Comment AFD is NOT a vote, as some here seem to think, and the numbers on each side are irrelevant, the closing editor is to decide based on the strength of the arguments, not which side has more quantity of support. An AFD could be 100 to 1 but still close in agreement with the one person if their argument has basis in wikipedia policy and the 100 giving empty arguments along the lines of ILIKEIT. Note that I'm not taking a side on this review, just pointing out that "but we had more votes" isn't a valid argument for overturning. One other comment - in the case of a review like this, particularly one based on notability, an admin might want to consider temporarily restoring the article. --
Minderbinder (
talk)
13:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I've undeleted the page so that nonadmins can see the content before deletion. Note that while the template says that users may be bold if there is strong consensus for undeletion, there is not strong consensus in that direction here, and I urge users not to take this restoration as a blank check on editing the page. I have not protected the page and would like to not need to. Cheers.
lifebaka
++
15:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn to no consensus. Most of the delete arguments are based on having zero sources which could possibly satisfy
WP:N, which is disproved by the sources present on the page in its last version. Granted that quite a few of those sources are somewhat trivial mentions, but the first two are dedicated almost entirely to the organization itself and its actions, and are themselves of decent length. Therefore, delete arguments are weaker, though they still make the valid point that the sources appear to only be of local interest. Given this, a conclusion of delete seems slightly incorrect. I would like to see more discussion on whether or not the organization is merely of local interest and whether or not the inclusion is therefore giving it
undue weight, but as there was no discussion about this on the AfD, we can't make conclusions here based on it. Cheers, everyone.
lifebaka
++
15:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn While there aren't a ton of sources, there are at least two that are non-trivial mentions, and one is from outside the local area (arizona). Definitely much room for improvement in the article, but it does meet WP:ORG. I do agree with the closing admin ignoring SPA's, but based on the merits of the situation I disagree with the closing. --
Minderbinder (
talk)
16:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn to no consensus - Between
sjprmedia.html and Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL, there seems to be a likelihood of sufficient reliable source material for the topic to meet
WP:N. In the AfD discussion, the participants discussed some of these references and did not seem to come to a consensus as to whether the reliable sources were sufficient to meet
WP:N. A no consensus close seems a more reasonable close. I think what is getting everyone is the behavior. As for behavior, SPA editor
JennaBugg posted in the AfD as her very first Wikipedia post, "They helped my family and my children and never asked for a single penny for their services."
[4] Given that it was her first post to Wikipedia and she found her way to AfD, it seems highly likely that JennaBugg was notified of the AfD off Wikipedia and her emotions were tugged to support a friend in need, despite Wikipedia's deletion discussion standards. The other posts in the AfD seem to indicate that part of the AfD was tainted in violation of
Wikipedia:Canvassing and attempts to !vote multiple times. However, I wouldn't call the AfD a nasty AfD. Behavior can be a basis for discounting !votes in the AfD. Even then, I still think that there was not a consensus about the reliable source material. For deletion review, behavior may come into play to determine a likelihood of whether the article will meet the content standards, e.g., Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, and Biographies of living persons. The
cached article shows that the editors failed to use the available reliable sources. However, the deleted article wasn't so far off the content standards mark as to say poor behavior by the interested editors will keep it from meeting Wikipedia content standards. As for the AfD behavior, Jimbo anticipated inappropriate reactions by new editors where he wrote on 9 September 2008,
Some of them react in ways that we, as Wikipedians who favor reasoned discourse ... find inappropriate. Sure, and why not? [Their interests] are being unfairly attacked and they are hurt and angry and they have no idea what our rules are. That's not their fault.
[5]
While the SPA acted in a way the affected the AfD, I don't think they acted in a way that would prevent the article from meeting Wikipedia content standards, particularly once they have more understanding of how Wikipedia works. Given the lack of consensus on whether there is sufficient reliable source material and that the article content itself is not the subject of inappropriate reactions, overturning to no consensus would seem a reasonable approach. --
Suntag
☼
16:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Since it's about five years after the fact, Jimbo is hardly anticipating anything there. This sort of thing has been happening for a long time, and we have experience of dealing with it. Non-policy-based arguments are discounted, however many people try to stuff a non-existent ballot. And, conversely, a rationale that has a strong grounding in policy is given full consideration, whoever it was that made it, be it an editor without an account who has apparently never edited before or an editor with an account of many years' standing. (An editor who has never edited before but who grasps our policies and guidelines and the project's goals is an editor to be encouraged, indeed.)
Uncle G (
talk)
02:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: One measure of significance for us is how mature the organization's website is and how many links it has from other sites. Different services use different algorithms, but the data is meaningful when like organizations are compared. Using
| Yahoo Site Explorer I see that SJPR is shown with 845 pages and 404 links. None of their members are a member of the AA-EVP, so we do not have a link to their group. Amongst 15
| AA-EVP member websites that are for a similar purpose, the highest is 101 pages and 731 links. The average is 60.1 pages and 139.7 links. By comparison, the AA-EVP website lists as 9,294 pages and 1,179 links.
In a time that real-time information, as compared to magazines, journals and books, is concentrated on the Internet, website size and popularity is a clear measure of the place the group has in the culture and SJPR clearly has a relatively important standing.
Tom Butler (
talk)
17:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse Deletion There are literally hundreds of such "ghost hunting" groups across the US who receive fleeting media mentions during slow news cycles, usually around Halloween when news outlets seek light program filler or "spooky" seasonal stories. What makes this group different? That the "Paranormal Examiner" (???) named them one of the Top Ten Best Paranormal Groups? That they don't make "inappropriate EVP" accessible to children? (Kids, we forbid you to listen to a ghost who uses profanity, so stick with the G-Rated spirits) In all seriousness, this fails
WP:N utterly. -
LuckyLouie (
talk)
18:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse As others said, this DRV is clearly motivated by a conflict of interest. The admin made the correct move at the AfD in discounting the single-purpose voters. Wikipedia shouldn't be manipulated in this fashion by spammers.
Themfromspace (
talk)
07:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn Consensus at AfD was to keep based on the presence of reliable and verifiable source. Closing admin has offered no valid justification to ignore this consensus.
Alansohn (
talk)
20:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse reasonable for the closer to discount the SPAs and COIs - what's left is a clear consensus to delete.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
21:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- endorse even when the sources are reliable I don't really feel that they are sufificently detailed to allow a verifiable article.
Spartaz
Humbug!
15:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
|