Wikipedia:Deletion review/Human disguise

Human disguise – no-consensus endorsed but deletion overturned. There was a basic misconception in the close in that the closer asserted that since another article has been deleted then deletion was the status quo and effectively went for an IAR deletion. In fact, since DRV had referred the article back to AFD this debate was a de novo consideration of the article and the previous AFD was set aside. Therefore the default position was that the article exists unless there is a clear consensus to delete it. This discussion clearly demonstrates there is no deletion consensus so deletion was not the correct thing to do –– closing statement by Spartaz (talk · contribs). Close fixed by yours truly. – Tim Song (talk) 08:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I believe that there was sufficient oddity surrounding the nomination and the way the debate was pursued, and the odd result ("no consensus - default to delete" - as far as I know unprescedented) that the result should be modified to a more regular "no consensus" so that improvement work that was already underway on the article and making significant progress can be continued. A follow up AfD with less drama could easily be carried out if that improvement work proves to be insufficient. I have made this request previously to the closing editor and they have declined, so I bring it here. Artw (talk) 22:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse no consensus close, but overturn to default to keep. DRV would not have overturned the speedy and listed at AfD if it found the previous AfD applicable to the article. We do not overturn simply based on a harmless technicality. Therefore, there is no status quo to delete. Tim Song (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see this argument in a few places, so I'll respond to the first instance. Although the general confusing situation played a role, the timing of the G4 – prior to the AfD close – was a major point in the previous DRV. If the G4 had followed the AfD, the DRV may have looked more like Alan Cabal at WP:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 30, with discussion of G4's "substantially identical" and whether the "reason for the deletion no longer applies". This expansion would have been examined in detail. Flatscan (talk) 04:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse and delete: The article got relisted almost immediately because it was recreated from an article that had just been deleted (through a normal AfD discussion with a trivial name change only (from Human suit to Human disguise. Therefore, the subsequent AfD got treated as a DRV, with a no consensus being equated to the precedent verdict, which was to delete. Unusual, but perfectly logical interpretation.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Overturn and restore: Although the references now supplied still need beefing up, I'll eat my words and say that notable, reliable references touching the subject of human disguise as a subject have been supplied at this point, even though this was a remarkably unorthodox AfD.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is too bad really since I fail to see evidence of this at all. No where can one see a reference which treats the entirety of the phenomenon like the entry did. Joseph Campbell's Masks of God does not if that is what you are referring to. I've asked for verification below.PelleSmith (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs are AfDs. DRVs are DRVs. If one is too be considered the other then it should be disclosed up front, which would probably mean the AfD stopping the moment it start. As it was it ran it's full course as an AfD and that is what it should be considered as. Artw (talk) 23:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was more than a name change that occurred. There was also an expansion on the number of references that were included in the article after the original AfD close. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse no consensus close, but overturn to default to keep; I reprise my comments from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Human disguise#Disagree with closure reasoning:
- «Therefore, no consensus is the only correct outcome.» — Agreed.
- «However, this article is unique in that it was previously deleted,» — Disagreed; present article is substantially different from "Human suit", for one thing, it's better developed.
- «and that the 'status quo' is for the article to not exist.» — Disagreed; present article is not in the "status quo" of another article altogether. This is a de novo review, so "no consensus" means "no consensus", not "consensus to delete".
- After all, presumably that other article was deleted because there was consensus to delete it, right? (Or wasn't there?) So surely it is significant that this time the consensus has shifted.
- "In any XfD (WP:AfD, WP:TfD, etc.), 'no consensus' defaults to keep. Keeping an article preserves all options and the possibility of future discussions."
This has been the strangest closure basis I've seen, to delete an article precisely because there wasn't a consensus to delete it! Should we see the practice spread across Wikipedia? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 22:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't a consensus to keep it either - and given the history of the article I think it is quite logical. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, Wikipedia policy is "'no consensus' defaults to keep." — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 23:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, yes. While default-to-delete is still being discussed inre BLP's, and while I might understand a deletion in cases where default-to-keep of a BLP might act to harm a living person, a no-consensus default to keep for other types of articles is per guideline and has been accepted and practiced for years. While I respect the closer being "logical", guidelines inre consensus are there for reasons which have themselves been hashed out... with a non-consensus default-to-keep being part of guideline for logical reasons. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose the sort of "logic" that takes us from «If there has been no obvious consensus to change the status of the article, the person closing the AfD will state No consensus, and the article will be kept.» to "No consensus, so the article will be deleted" could as easily be applied to any other Wikipedia policy, or the US Bill of Rights, or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There's a cheerful thought for you. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 00:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting, perhaps, that that page is an essay, not policy. That particular section is unchanged since one editor created it two years ago. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting, perhaps, that the same provision was cited both from WP:No consensus and from WP:AFD. Here it is also from WP:DPR#AFD: "If no consensus was reached, then the article is kept by default unless it regards a living person (see below). The decision should generally include a reference to the lack of consensus, such as No consensus - default to keep, in order to minimize ambiguity." — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 16:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not disagreeing, just replying to your second comment that no consensus has different meanings in different places/circumstances, and here needs to be defined in terms of AfD, as you kindly did above. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by previous DRV closer. There is relevant history in this deletion review discussion and this AfD as well. As an objective observer to the content of the article itself and as an objective observer to the content of the second AfD discussion, the base assessment of "no consensus" seems accurate. That was not what happened here, however. The AfD closure was less a closure of the merits of the AfD itself as it was a unilateral reversal of my deletion review closure. I take offense to this, and I feel intent of the closure borders (philosophically at least) on wheel-warring of my DRV closure. If this was not a referendum on my DRV closure, then "no consensus defaults to delete" is patently absurd. Endorse no consensus and Overturn deletion itself. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologies if you consider my actions to be overturning your DRV decision. CSD G4 only covers when the article is not substantially different, it says nothing about whether the notability must have been improved. An unfit article shouldn't get a free pass just because it was identical. My reasoning is that the article was deleted initially for unfitness as an article, and that while the article was not G4-able due to a technicality, the consensus still was that the article shouldn't exist, and it the onus was on the keeps to demonstrate why the article should have been kept. Your DRV closure was not incorrect, nor is my AfD closure incongruous to it. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your remarks and your comments towards my DRV close. As a point of clarification, however, you say "[a]n unfit article shouldn't get a free pass just because it was identical." Are you sure you don't mean that "an unfit article shouldn't get a free pass just because it wasn't identical"? In any case, while your assurance makes me feel better about your motives in the close, I frankly think it demonstrates an even poorer understanding of deletion policy. You can't just make up these rules about defaulting to deletion just because they seem "logical" to you. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The basis for my entire close was that the DRV didn't change the standing consensus from delete to keep. No consensus isn't the same as writing 'keep', it's just saying there isn't a change in the standing consensus - I think some people here don't understand that. I'm happy for you to do disagree with my logic; as long as my closure is understood I'll see merit in whatever conclusion this DRV creates. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was no "standing consensus" to delete this article, and never had been, despite a determined attempt to keep cramming it into a tinier suit. A different article was deleted, and this one was subjected to Procrustean editing to make it seem the same article. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 00:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(several edit conflicts) I recuse from saying any of those words in bold, because I participated in the AfD, but I want to say that I do not wish to see a future in which admins are permitted to decide whether "no consensus" defaults to "delete" or "keep". Admins should be clerks to the consensus, not masters of it, and their tools should be a mop, not a gavel.
In this particular case, BackslashForwardslash appears to have treated this as if it were a DRV of the previous G4, by treating "no consensus" as "endorse previous deletion". But DRV has already considered this matter and decided that the G4 should not be permitted to stand.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse S Marshall's view completely--if we go by our own individual opinion on an article, how do we deal with the fact that there are about 800 active admins, each of them with their own individual opinion? That's the reason we have process--the alternative is anarchy, it which we each delete what we think ought to be deleted. I have a few ~~dozen~~ hundred articles in mind, personally. I do not nominate them because I think consensus would not support deletion, but that does not change my opinion that they ought to be deleted for the good of Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 19:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus to delete, defaults to keep. Anything else, is simply madness. And this article is far different than human suit, much larger, dozens of references, including things the other did not have. What happened at an unrelated article, is not relevant here at all. This article was around since 00:51, 24 March 2006. It wasn't created simply because the other was getting deleted. Dream Focus 23:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse no consensus, but default to Keep, I argued for delete in the AfD; but I disagree with the close of the AfD claiming that "no consensus - default to delete". That is simply wrong, and a poor interpretation of Wikipedia policy and inconsistent with precedent. Yes, I believe the article is predominantly a trivia collection with only a small portion being of encyclopedic value to merge elsewhere, but that's a different debate. For purposes of the DRV, I believe the deletion should be overturned as "no consensus" defaults to "keep"; anything else sets a dangerous precedent. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse no consensus but overturn deletion. An AfD ending with "no consensus" should never result in the article being deleted. DRV overturned the speedy deletion, saying that it did not meet the speedy deletion criteria and thus it could not be deleted without a community consensus to do so. There was no community consensus to delete the article, therefore the deletion was improper. Thryduulf (talk) 23:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse delete and stop wikilawyering technicalities. The recreation of the entry was itself immensely disruptive. It should have been deleted from the beginning. There should have been no need to speedy it after the AfD and there should have been no need for the DRV. The only bad precedent that was set here was to allow this mess to get to this point in the first place. If everyone decides this is what we have to go through every time someone tries to circumvent established deletion processes then we're really in trouble. Put this nonsense to bed.PelleSmith (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to "no-consensus default to keep". As DRV is not to re-hash merits of the AfD itself, I will not revisit the varous pro and con arguments, nor the comments at an earlier AfD, as this AfD was about THIS verision of an article and not some earlier version. The closer himself stated "Both sides made good (and bad) arguments. Therefore, no consensus is the only correct outcom." Per WP:AFD, " If there has been no obvious consensus to change the status of the article, the person closing the AfD will state No consensus, and the article will be kept". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn per above. Ikip (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse "no consensus", but overturn to "default to keep" per precedents and policy laid out by Artw on closing admin's talk page. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly you mean Sizzle Flambé? Artw (talk) 01:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Not that I didn't initially raise the matter on the closing admin's page, but it's Sizzle Flambé that has done the heavy lifting work on quoting appropriate policy. Artw (talk) 01:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

You do deserve the credit for saying it first. *I* only keep repeating it, loudly, because someone keeps saying "I didn't hear that!" — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, no matter what route we take to get there. But then, given that the keep !votes were primarily ILIKEIT or claims that allowing only 99% of the universe (known or unknown) into the article meant it wasn't INDISCRIMINATE, my impression was that there was a consensus to delete. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put this poorly, so I've clarified my thoughts and re-phrased them below (although with the same !vote result). Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 08:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, the observation that the concept of non-human beings disguising themselves as human beings is wide-ranging in cultures and times — covering fields as separate as folklore, mythology, fantasy, and science fiction, and entities as disparate as gods, demons, robots, and aliens — was pretty much the point of the article, not "indiscriminate" at all, but rather part of its notability, since it's a worldwide and age-old theme. Many stories, artwork, books, and movies have been based upon it, some of which the article cited and linked, demonstrating the concept's notability. Against this, there was, what, IDONTLIKEIT? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point, exactly… I didn't see it as ILIKEIT versus IDONTLIKEIT. I saw it as ILIKEIT versus INDISCRIMINATE, SYNTH, NOR, RS, PRIMARY, NOTE, GNG, TRIVIA, etc. Closing admins can disregard non-policy based !votes (such as do/don't like its), and when I look at the AFD that way, I see a clear consensus to delete.
Here's a request to any interested editors: go through the AFD, and look solely at the !votes that directly refer to policy. Not the comments or replies, and definitely not the challenges or badgering—just the !votes with solid rationales. Having done that, do you see a consensus? No, I am not asking for replies to this (please no!), just for editors to take a little time & do a quick reality check themselves. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 06:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, look right here, right now, at the people who IDONTLIKEIT the "No consensus - default to keep" standard, but really, really ILIKEIT throwing that rule away on the fly right now. Are those !votes in accordance with policy? And, sayyyy, all you admins, is there consensus right this instant for you to keep your admin bits? Of course not! So by \ /'s rule, they should be removed! — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 18:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn the no consensus, as there was a clear consensus to delete - I've done a full breakdown at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Human disguise#Was there a consensus.3F, and honestly looking at the results: I do not see how an unbiased observer could read through the !votes, eliminate those without rationales based on policy, guidelines, or essays, and still believe that there was no consensus. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 08:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dori's revision of history to create a consensus (where Backslash Forwardslash correctly saw none) involves reclassifying the !votes so the pro-deletes all fit policy, and the pro-keeps don't. My own pro-keep, for instance, argued that the broad theme was clearly notable, but Dori summarized it and many others as "inherited", which is of course an invalid "keep" argument, shifting consensus to the "delete" side, a nice bit of self-dealing. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 09:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see as it makes any difference, but it appears that it might make you happier, so I moved your !vote from INHERITED to ITSNOTABLE. Anyone else want their !vote to be re-categorized? Just ask (it'll get done faster if you skip the crap, though). Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 10:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The difference it makes is the difference card stacking usually makes, Dori. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 17:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dori's point on your !vote was that it amounted to WP:INHERITED, which is one of the arguments not to use in a deletion debate. It consists of arguing that the elements of an article in this case, the separate appearances in fiction and lore of creatures in human guise are notable when it fact what needs to be found notable is the analysis of the common points between those appearances (which still lacks to this day). So, no self-dealing here, just a personal assessment that looks to be in absolute good faith.--Ramdrake (talk) 09:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the "elements", "the separate appearances in fiction and lore of creatures in human guise are notable", as you say, and those can be found and cited in the existing sources as is. What you're asking to be found notable, "the analysis of the common points", is another matter. We needn't quote this entire article from a single existing article elsewhere — in fact, we couldn't, it would be copyvio! But where multiple other articles touch upon this subject matter, we can use them to construct an article on it. That's still not "inheriting" notability from the analysis; the notability is based directly on the subject matter itself. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 16:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

endorse the no consensus, but overturn to keep. Last I knew, aside from the afd/drv that shall not be named, no consensus decisions should result in a default to keep. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Although the bolded wording "no consensus - default to delete" provokes a strong kneejerk reaction that it was a bad close, the closer's actual logic is pretty good. He's not saying "no consensus" should default to keep in every case, just in this one case. There was a "delete" AFD, the article got recreated and sent back to AFD on a technicality... so it just seems like the status of the article is deleted and there needs to be a keep consensus to overturn it. I would suggest you never bold such a phrase again though, closer :-) --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 02:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to contradict you, Sancho, but that's not what happened at all. There was an AfD on one article that was closed early as a G4 speedy deletion. DRV then overturned the speedy deletion. A more expansive version of that article, renamed with more references, was then AfD'ed, and we're now reviewing the second deletion. And I'm a little tired of seeing it get deleted out of process, to be frank.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 02:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, you're not contradicting me. Maybe you misunderstood me, but your version of events is the same version of events I was trying to describe. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 02:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good. :) I was confused by the words "a delete AfD", I think.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 02:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What happened, according to my understanding, is:

Human suit is nominated for AfD.
ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs) tried to expand the article during the AfD, but was reverted.
ChildofMidnight subsequently created human disguise, which contains a version substantially expanded from human suit. It was unclear whether most of the AfD participants evaluated CoM's expansions, as they were reverted. The article was speedy deleted as G4 before the AfD even closed.
The human suit AfD was closed as delete.
DRV overturns the G4 of human disguise and sends to AfD.

As I noted above, DRV's overturning implies that G4 would not apply even if Human disguise were created after the Human suit AfD closed. To suggest that the DRV participants collectively ignored WP:BURO is absurd. That implicit determination means that there's no consensus applicable to human disguise, and the status quo is, as it always has been, to keep. Tim Song (talk) 02:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You know as someone who came to the second AfD having missed the dram of the first that is the first time I've seen a clear and concise explanation of events. I am further convinced that any handwaving to acheive " adeletion no matter what route we take to get there" per DoriSmith should be ignored and that the AfD should be treated as freestanding. Artw (talk) 02:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "delete AFD" I referred to, and the one the G4 deletion was incorrectly based on, was the human suit AFD. I guess I should actually pipe in the links first time around rather than assume people know what I mean :-) --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 02:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse no consensus, but change to default keep - WP:AFD states: "If there has been no obvious consensus to change the status of the article, the person closing the AfD will state No consensus, and the article will be kept". The people here who say this is an exception to the rule need consensus on the policy page; we can not go around declaring arbitrary exceptions to policy. (OK, that's what WP:IAR is for, but I do not think this should be applied in closing an AfD.) Cheers! Scapler (talk) 02:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no consensus, with result of keep, per current policy on no-consensus AfDs. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Change to no consensus, keep. But the closing admin needs a chance to express his views--and I hope he will use that chance to acknowledge his error and undelete the article himself. DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no consensus closure, but overturn actual deletion – at first, I thought this was something akin to the premise that closing admins need to look at each deletion discussion in a vacuum without considering previous nominations (while, on the other hand, another person can argue that consensus has changed within the past couple of weeks). But anyways, here's what basically happened:

Human suit was deleted, rightly so, at AFD.
Article was renamed to Human disguise and, shortly after, deleted, rightly so, per WP:CSD#G4.
Deletion of Human disguise is taken to DRV, in which the consensus is to overturn the deletion an list at AFD.
Human disguise deleted at AFD with the "no consensus - default to delete" decision, which is why we're here again.

Number 4 is where the problem is at. It's not about overturning a G4 deletion as the last DRV result nullified that. In this case, we're forced to go back to the first AFD to see what's going on. Given, we are looking at a different article than it was when it first was nominated for deletion. It's a combination of the previous AFD being given less weight because of those circumstances, and the fact that consensus can change (which I mentioned above). With that said, closing admins should not be looking at deletion discussions in a vacuum, but instead, they need to look at the circumstances and determine what roles the previous deletion discussions has had on the article's current state. Of course, this is easier for me to say, as this is the first time having participated in this discussion. MuZemike 04:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a timeline on the talk page. Flatscan (talk) 04:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's actually really helpful.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 04:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That timeline is misleading. 99% of the content on Human Disguise was NOT at the Human Suit article. Dream Focus 18:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I replied to Dream Focus on the talk page. Flatscan (talk) 02:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse no consensus close, but overturn to default to keep; per nom.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse delete duplication of previous article by copypaste and previous DRV was an abuse of process. Verbal chat 07:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact the closure should have clearly been delete per the previous AfD and per this AfD, as has been shown at WT:Articles for deletion/Human disguise#Was there a consensus? by Dori. Verbal chat 11:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AfD applied to "Human suit" (which was and remains deleted), not to "Human disguise" (the present topic). — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 17:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore the process We can't even close the deletions in moderately predictable ways? What has become of us? I'm sure the article can be fixed until this debate blows over, but I'm not sure if these deletion debates are going to help any. I believe the deletion discussion surrounding this article is sufficient proof that our processes are no longer up to the task and we spend way too much time debating the process rather than fixing the articles in question. Seriously. I'm not sure how to say this nicely, but I'm concerned. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse outcome (deletion). Reasonable reflection of the state of play on that mess of indiscriminate original research.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - well within admin discretion to consider this a recreation of a previously deleted article. Tarc (talk) 14:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except it hadn't been just that; from the very first, it had incorporated additional material, despite repeated attempts to delete that and reduce it to a clone of "human suit", it kept being developed far beyond that; and even now in its userfied copy, further text and illos (like the above) are being added. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 15:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe the additional material made it substantially different from the previous incarnation, and apparently neither did the closing admin. Tarc (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment If the article is as horrible as it detractors say then surely sll they have to do is wait a little while and start a new AfD, untainted by spurrious claims of some kind of policy breach , dealing with whatever issues the article has at that point? I simply do not understand the rush. Artw (talk) 15:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the article were allowed to stand unmolested, then people could keep contributing more text and examples and illos and citations and corrections and cleanup, and it would be harder to justify "deletion, no matter what route we take to get there." Understand now? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 16:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Endorse both closure and deletion, per Verbal and Bali Ultimate. This was a recreation as an endrun in lieu of a DRV. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How could it be "in lieu of a DRV" when there was a DRV? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 17:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restore per accurate determination of no consensus. Closer's logic doesn't make sense; current community opinion, even one resulting in a lack of consensus, should supersede older outcome, especially given the intervening DRV. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn "no consensus" to "consensus to delete" per Dori. Also, recognize that the recreated article kept all the weaknesses of Human suit, while making additions that only aggravated the offenses against WP:SYN and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The topic itself is original research and cannot serve as the basis for a verifiable article in the true and accepted sense of that term (reliable sources that identify an object of knowledge that matches the scope of the article). Wareh (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion It was a train-wreck of an article full of OR and Fancruft. Furthermore attempts were made to disrupt a previous article by cloning the article under a different title, leading us to this to begin with. Simonm223 (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no consensus, but overturn delete I did !vote in this AfD to keep, but irrelevant of that, the default is to keep and I'd argue with any attempt to default to delete outside of the very narrow case of BLPs where the subject requests deletion no matter how I !voted in the AfD. Hobit (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete I endorse the result but not the process taken. The admin was within his interpretive leeway to delete the article, as all the keep opinions were either weak or refuted and a recently closed similiar debate ended in a delete, but I'm not sure why he chose the awkward "no consensus" close which practically asked the article to be brought here. Also, per Wareh. Them From Space 00:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: read the admins full rationale; in his opinion at least, all of the keep arguments were not refuted, as he said both sides had both strong and weak arguments, which lead to the no consensus. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 05:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse no consensus, overturn delete and default to keep. Deleting no-consensus articles is usually a breach of current WP:DEL policy -only known exception is for no-consensus BLP articles where the subject explicitly asks deletion. Paraphrasing the AfD closing admin, the "status quo" for the article was it existing. The fact it has been previously deleted is irrelevant: we cannot cherry-pick the "status quo" that we prefer. We should refer to the existing condition before the closure of AfD. --Cyclopia ^talk 14:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: With all the "endorse but restore" and the "overturn and keep deleted" comments, I can't help but realize this DRV is turning into a second AfD. Editors aren't here to say whether the article should be kept or deleted but whether they endorse the closer's verdict or want it overturned. Geez, people! :) --Ramdrake (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, we are arguing that the admin read consensus correctly (specifically that there was no consensus), but was mistaken in the action taken in light of that lack of consensus. The policy is that we keep things there is no consensus to delete. The closer made a good faith closure that argued that in this case we should default to deletion. Those !voting to endorse and restore are claiming that the closer's argument if flawed. It's exactly what DrV should be doing. Hobit (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then, if an admin did the wrong thing, shouldn't this be at WP:ANI? A DRV is to state whether we endorse or want overturned an admin's verdict. It's not made to pick and choose which parts of an admin's assessment we want (no consensus vs. deletion). My point is, this argumentation should not be taking place at a DRV.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the admin had done it to make a point or otherwise disrupt things, ANI would be the right place to hold this discussion. Instead folks are arguing that the close is flawed and are seeking to correct it. That' pretty much the mandate of DrV. There is no reason why the outcome from DrV needs to entirely overturn or endorse. Hobit (talk) 00:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, no. From WP:DRV:

Deletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate or to review a speedy deletion.

Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look.
Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly, or if the speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria established for such deletions.
Deletion Review may also be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be #useful to write a new article.
In the most exceptional cases, posting a message to WP:AN/I may be more appropriate instead. Rapid corrective action can then be taken if the ensuing discussion makes clear it should be.

Nowhere does it says it is the place to argue if the closer interpreted the debate correctly but we disagree with what he did with the article.--Ramdrake (talk) 01:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If he is saying there is no consensus and then deleting the article despite that, it becomes a de facto ignore-all-rules speedy. That is definitely in the purview of DRV. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the majority here who endorse the no consensus closure and request an overturn of the deletion so as to be consistent with our guidelines, as determined by community consensus. This is not the same article as human suit; was subject to a DRV after an improper G4 deletion; and was subject to only one AfD where the clear outcome was no consensus. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn finding of 'no consensus' (per WT:Articles for deletion/Human disguise#Was there a consensus? & Dori) and endorse deletion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dori's "Was there a consensus?" is a table by a partisan of one side of the debate which declares all !votes from the other side invalid as contra-policy, and therefore consensus favors her side, huzza huzza. That's self-dealing in its most blatant form. And you're urging us to adopt it???! — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 09:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: that I've re-characterized Sizzle Flambé's !vote to try to make him happier. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 10:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want you to "re-characterize" my !vote, or anyone's at all, especially in a false light. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 16:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn No consensus should default to keep for practical reasons. Because there is no consensus for deletion, there is no bar to immediate recreation of the article and so deletion will achieve little but disruption. It is better in such cases to keep the article in mainspace so that editors may more easily discuss and improve it. Either the article will be improved further and the pressure to delete will subside or it will not and it will be renominated for deletion after a reasonable time for improvement has elapsed. Defaulting to delete is therefore both impractical and improper and this is emphatically summarised in the deletion guidelines for administrators: When in doubt, don't delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to Delete (thus, endorse outcome) as above. Eusebeus (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Creating a table detailing your contentious opinions on which votes do and do not count (while handily sweeping other discussion under the carpet) would seem to go against the drama-free zone rules of DrV. I suggest it be deleted immediately. Artw (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Assume Good Faith" is such a basic requirement of the collegiality of Wikipedia that acting in good faith should also be an obvious requirement. With this in mind, I am baffled by the recent events of this issue. "No consensus - default to delete", followed by card stacking to toss all the "keep" !votes and revise the results as a delete consensus (by one of the delete partisans, not an impartial 3rd party, of course). Is this a trend at Wikipedia? Is this becoming acceptable behavior? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 17:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the above analysis, it is pretty clear that the keep arguments were far stronger and thus if we went by strength and accuracy of arguments, it should actually be overturned to "keep," as the article is clearly discriminate, non-trivial, unoriginal research, that passes multiple guidelines, policies, and essays. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete I don't care whether the analysis was no consensus or keep. What was obvious was that there was no consensus to delete. My discussion also made plain that the term "disguised as a human" is clearly discussed in academic literature on any basic 30 second source search on scholar.google.com. These claims, being repeated at DRV, that there are no sources for the analysis of this theme in the global history of literature is plainly falise. There are entire books on the subject. Miami33139 (talk) 18:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Please provide a link to one such "entire book on the subject", or at least a reference. I know of none, and that is my only problem with the existence of the article.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Joseph Campbell, The Masks of God: Primitive Mythology has repeated and recurring discussions of the commonality of gods and monsters appearing in human form across cultures and into modern representations in film and literature. Joseph Campbell is not even obscure. Miami33139 (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Or lesser journal articles like "Divine Disguisings"; "The Disguises of the Gods in the Iliad"; and "The Folklore of the Stranger". — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 23:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - (And Ramdrake was good as his word!) — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 03:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Not exactly. None of those references treat the entire subject matter covered by the article even remotely. Two of the journal articles are about Homer specifically, which seems like the only viable subject matter here going by available sources, and the last article is not about human disguise, but about the stranger disguised specifically as a beggar in Japanese folklore. Regarding the first volume of Joseph Campbell's Masks of God please provide verification of this claim.PelleSmith (talk) 18:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        (ahem the last article:) "... And he can also be an avowedly supernatural being, outside the human race. The Wardens of certain pools, for example, who are believed to be snakes, and to be ready to lend lacquer cups and bowls to those who wish to borrow them for a party, are referred to as ijin. So are the uncanny yamabito or 'mountain people', said to be seven or eight feet tall, to be covered with hair or leaves, and to live deep in the mountains beyond human habitation. .... possessed of powerful magic, but he is disguised as a filthy beggar. Be careful therefore how you treat strangers...." — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 19:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Exactly -- the motif of the stranger disguised as a filthy beggar. I don't see anything there about the particular interest in a non-human being disguised as a human. "A-hem" all you want.PelleSmith (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I've added underlines to the parts at issue, and brought the passage up to normal size, to help. "ijin"=異人="stranger". — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 22:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Let me underline the rest of that first sentence for you with added emphasis. The paper is not about the motif of human disguise, but about a particular motif of the stranger disguised as a beggar. The fact that the stranger "can be" superhuman is altogether besides the point if the stranger can also be human. The point is that the article is not about the disguise of non-humans as humans, but about a motif that often includes that dynamic, as well as others. Underlining things that don't prove your point works about as well as saying a-hem. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 01:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Criminently, PelleSmith, I guess the fact that the folks in the back of the van stopped early in Men in Black could be extraterrestrial was altogether beside the point, too, as long as they could also be human, so why did the MiB even bother showing up? One "illegal alien" is just like another, right? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 04:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and reclose - in my opinion the current close - whilst undoubtably well meaning - is not acceptable per the current practices and norms of the AfD process. Guest9999 (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion This is a perfectly plausible interpretation of "no consensus". Furthermore, the arguments for deletion were more valid, as noted above so there is no need to argue technicalities. Triplestop x3 02:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:DPR#AFD and WP:AFD#How an AfD discussion is closed for what is the "perfectly plausible interpretation of 'no consensus'". Thanks. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 03:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And please read my words above more carefully. Thanks. And by your logic articles should not default to delete due to BLP concerns. This close was within admin discretion. Triplestop x3 04:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To date no gods, demons, aliens, or robots, disguised as humans, have filed article deletion requests on BLP grounds, as far as I know. That would drastically change the situation. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 08:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a note my primary reason for still supporting the deletion was the whole series of shennanigans perpretrated in an attempt to rescue the original article.... and that article made no reference to any of the articles mentioned. It was just fancruft. If a new, properly referenced article came up using those citations I would not push for re-deletion. I'd just police it for fancruft. Simonm223 (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simon, what sort of results do you see when you look down the screen of a Google Scholar or Google Books search using simple and obvious search terms like (take-human-shape | take-human-form | disguised-as-human | human-disguise) ? Would you be willing to, like, actively help put in some suitable proper references, as well as police the article to keep fancruft out ? I speak for myself and, I'm sure, others, when I say your help would be greatly appreciated. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 16:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.