- Donkey show (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Should have been no consensus, or should have been relisted for more votes. "Original research" was used as a delete vote, but no new conclusion not in the original was reached by the article, which is the definition of original research in Misplaced Pages. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Endorse. 3-2 headcount. Delete !votes based on policy (succinctness does not mean badly reasoned). Keep !votes asserted notability on mere mentions: it is open to make those assertions but they aren't overwhelming arguments. Unless there's something highly unusual, a delete close in these circumstances is within discretion. It was also open to the admin to close rather than relist for a second time. 5 contributors is enough. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Note: this was a bit premature. As the DRV nominator suggests the concerns of the delete !voters were not well-founded, us humble non-sysops will need to see what was actually deleted. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- As the closing admin, I have restored the article temporarily for the course of this DRV. I closed essentially per the nomination: after looking through the sources, I saw nothing reliably sourced that could lead to an article of any substantial length. In addition to seeing no sources of substance, I also noted that the vast majority of edits to the article fell into two categories: listings of trivia ('in popular culture') or vandalism. I'll also point out that another editor had asked me about userfying it four days ago; I declined pending the discovery of reliable secondary sources, which the editor is looking into but has not yet found as of this note. Shimeru (talk) 08:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I'm troubled by the fact the nomination was more or less "this doesn't exist, so notability doesn't exist either," which most of the !delete votes tended to fall towards. Non-existence does not automatically mean non-notability. I would like to point out the ability for this article to be sourced -- google book searches reveal quite a bit of information to those willing to do research. For example: http://books.google.com/books?q=%22donkey+show%22+mexico&btnG=Search+Books http://books.google.com/books?q=%22donkey+show%22+tijuana&btnG=Search+Books http://books.google.com/books?q=%22donkey+show%22+sex&btnG=Search+Books riffic (talk) 08:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- From these particular searches: Nor-tec rifa!: electronic dance music from Tijuana to the world, Cassell's dictionary of slang, Border transits: literature and culture across the line. riffic (talk) 09:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Endorse, reasonable conclusion based on the strength of arguments. Stifle (talk) 10:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yup, that was probably a reasonable close. As a small learning point for the closer, when closing against the apparent consensus as you did in this case, a more detailed closing statement explaining your reasons is helpful, particularly to newer editors.—S Marshall /Cont 10:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Overturn to no consensus. As Richard Arthur Norton points out, the deletion rationale of OR is not supported. Sourcing is borderline (which makes it more defensive as an argument), but considering the subject and the sources, adequate. The Cassell's Dictionary of Slang is a RS, and the entry shows the practice exists. Los Angeles Magazine is also a RS. Headcounts, especially with an extremely low sample !voting population of only five, are not a viable reason to endorse (or to delete), since we should be discussing thoughtful reasons to support a particular position that constructively adds to the discussion. — Becksguy (talk) 11:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- I do not consider anecdotal evidence "reliable." I note Cassell's Dictionary of Slang was not a source in the article when it was deleted -- and I question whether it provides enough information to generate an article, even if it is a reliable source, as WP:NOT a dictionary. Shimeru (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Endorse either numerically or by strength of arguments, the outcome was clear either way, and it had already been relisted once. As an aside, I did have to chuckle at the fellow who wanted to keep based on mentions in those acclaimed journalistic documentaries, Bachelor Party and Clerks II. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Weak overturn to no consensus but no trout for the closer. I was the first to question this close and I was satisfied with Shimeru's answer and think the close was within admin's discretion as it could have gone either way. However, as long as we're here, I'll !vote to overturn for the reasons I gave on Shimeru's talk page linked above. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Overturn to NC as I don't see consensus in that discussion for anything. At the least the sources found by riffic are enough to justify a new discussion. Hobit (talk) 13:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Note also that asking for a userspace draft, which I might normally be inclined to do in a situation like this, is difficult as the closer has refused to provide one to riffic. Hobit (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Overturn to NC, possibly relist. Discussion didn't show consensus and delete !votes didn't really say the truth: There are RS in the article and the OR arguments are unfounded in the revisions I can see. The first keep is weak but the second is right. Should have been relisted. --Cyclopia 15:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Endorse proper judgment of policy-based consensus. WP:ITSREAL is not policy and neither is WP:THEYSAIDITONSOMESHOW. Guy (Help!) 16:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Relist or possibly no-consensus (which pretty much amount to the same thing in practice). The delete arguments were either: 1/ that it might not actually exist--but it does not in the least matter, since WP covers fictional subjects also; or 2/ that the sources were inadequate, but those arguments either ignored the fact that the re actually were sources--in which case the arguments were contrary to the plain facts of the matter, or the arguments saying so meant inadequate to prove real existence, which again is not a policy based argument. What the admin has discretion to do in an unsatisfactory argument is either to add their good arguments to the discussion and let someone else close, or, if they close, to decide between NC or relist. DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Endorse Delete votes are pure policy, and seem accurate given a review of the article and it sources. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Undelete/overturn to no consensus per DGG. The main thrust of the discussion seemed to focus on an irrelevant point, whether the topic actually exists. There was no meaningful argument made by either side related to policy. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Neither of the two non-nominator delete votes say anything about the topic existing or not, and whether the topic actually exists was only one facet (and certainly not a main thrust, more of a "and furthermore" type statement) of the nominator's statement. The deletion votes were based on notability and original research concerns, not existence concerns. Only one keep vote even addresses existence as an issue (and does so very ineptly). I do not know how one can read this AfD discussion and conclude that the main thrust was an argument over whether the topic exists or not. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Although some other issues were mentioned, they did not become a focus of the discussion because nobody provided arguments for or against anything. "Keep notable Delete not notable" isn't a discussion of any kind. While some of the votes named policies, none offered a reason to believe that those policies were relevant to the discussion: at no point did a keep voter provide a reason to believe the topic is notable, nor does anyone offer a reason to believe that it is original research (especially given that every statement in the article had an identified source) or non-notable. There's no arguments either way, just unsubstantiated statements of opinion. Given the lack of a compelling argument, there would need to be a substantial preponderance of opinion to warrant deletion, and 3-2 is not that. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- I was really just taking issue with your apparent assertion that the discussion was mainly, primarily, whatever-ly, about whether or not "it exists," which seems to me demonstrably false. Beyond that, my own opinion is that claiming that an article utterly devoid of sourcing reflective of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources is "non-notable" is all the argument one needs to argue that it's non-notable. I, for one, find that to be very compelling. Does someone need to literally type out the referenced policy in order for it to become an argument? I think you are drawing an unnecessarily fine line. But, all that said, I can certainly respectfully "agree to disagree" on this! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Overturn per DGG. Debate was not sufficient to establish consensus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Endorse. 2 keep !votes, one of which was based on WP:IHEARDOFIT. The 2 deletes were more policy based. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Endorse as per Niteshift36; none of the arguments advanced in favor of keeping the article led to any reliable sourcing to indicate notability of the subject. Kansan (talk) 07:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Endorse, reasonable conclusion based on the strength of arguments. --80.192.21.253 (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Endorse—numerically and in terms of quality, the those arguing to delete clearly came out on top. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 21:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Endorse only one keep vote actually referenced policy/guidelines vs 3 deletes grounded in policy. So closing as either "delete" or "no consensus" is well within discretion. Yilloslime C 20:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Overturn: sources appear to exist to meet the GNG (or in any case, there can be reasonable disagreement about whether they're sufficient, which means "No Consensus"), and "doesn't exist" != "not notable". Buddy431 (talk) 01:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comments: (1) There are only two delete votes in the AfD, since the nominator did not explicitly vote "Delete as nom". Is there a policy that specifies that a nomination is included as a literal explicit countable delete vote? I think not. (2) More importantly, on the other hand, there is clear policy that specifically says that deletion discussions (including DRV) do not count votes. Quoting WP:DEL policy in pertinent part: "These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy." Yet, several endorsements in this DRV refer to head counts, a practice which is against policy, and therefore those "votes" should be ignored. I think that the AfD vote was an even split. However, even if it was a 3-2 count, that's so close to an even split as to effectively be one since the sample population was so excessively small. Statistics 101. (3) I can not find a confirmed SPI report that proves User:Emily Jensen is a sock of User:John254 and therefore should not be counted in the AfD (although head counting is supposed to be evil). If there is one, I'll recant on this point. (4) The participation in the AfD was abysmal. Five participants does not constitute a deletion discussion that has any reasonable relationship to due process. This is especially important in borderline cases that occupy the gray area between what is clearly keepable and clearly deletable to nearly all editors—not just those who show up for a AfD and self select themselves. Also Statistics 101. (5) The more I think of this, the more I think DGG is right. Relisting was the appropriate way to go. Otherwise, overturn to No Consensus and someone can renominate later if necessary. (6) Many of the endorsers in the DRV are ignoring what look like reliable sources that were found during the DRV. I don't fault the closer for making a delete decision based on what was there at the time, however. That's why we have DRV. (7) The comments by DGG and Christopher Parham are particularly compelling, especially "...nobody provided arguments for or against anything ". Endorsing deletion due to strength of arguments in the AfD has no legs, and head counts are against policy. — Becksguy (talk) 11:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, a nomination is usually considered an implicit argument for deletion, on the grounds that the nominator wouldn't nominate the article if he didn't think it warranted deletion. Of course, that occasionally does happen, but in those cases the nominator explicitly states that the nomination is procedural. Shimeru (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
|