Time in Illinois – This discussion is now moot, as the article was speedy deleted by DGG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) under G5. (NAC) – Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 07:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Time in Illinois (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Clearly erroneous NAC close where the closer acknowledged they messed up the close This should be reclosed as merge or delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Comment If this was an inappropriate closure for non-admin, than what are we doing there? According to WP:NACD: "Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator". Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 07:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] That's the request. Spartaz doesn't have admin rights at the moment. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 09:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] indeed I am not an admin and we need an admin to reclose this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Oops. Every time I see you signature, I think you're an admin. Maybe time to request the bit back?. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 15:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Why should Time in Illinois be treated any differently from, say, Time in Alabama? What we ought to be doing is considering all of the articles called "Time in (State)". Spartaz is clearly right to say that this needs to be overturned, but we should be going further than that. Relist and co-nominate all the other such articles so that all are treated in a consistent way.—S Marshall T/C 10:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] ahah G5 time perhaps?? Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] G5 Speedy done, as suggested. I don't like deleting unequivocally good material via G5, but this is not in that category. DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Time in Illinois – This discussion is now moot, as the article was speedy deleted by DGG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) under G5. (NAC) – Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 07:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Clearly erroneous NAC close where the closer acknowledged they messed up the close This should be reclosed as merge or delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this was an inappropriate closure for non-admin, than what are we doing there? According to WP:NACD: "Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator". Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 07:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the request. Spartaz doesn't have admin rights at the moment. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 09:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

indeed I am not an admin and we need an admin to reclose this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Every time I see you signature, I think you're an admin. Maybe time to request the bit back?. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 15:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why should Time in Illinois be treated any differently from, say, Time in Alabama? What we ought to be doing is considering all of the articles called "Time in (State)". Spartaz is clearly right to say that this needs to be overturned, but we should be going further than that. Relist and co-nominate all the other such articles so that all are treated in a consistent way.—S Marshall T/C 10:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ahah G5 time perhaps?? Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

G5 Speedy done, as suggested. I don't like deleting unequivocally good material via G5, but this is not in that category. DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Politics in the British Isles – No consensus to overturn. Well over half of those expressing an opinion opined that the closure was not improper. While there is certainly a great deal of sentiment on both sides of the debate, this has been through DRV twice now, with a majority favoring retaining the article at its current title in each case. As such, any near-future (that is, within the next six months) efforts to bring this article up for deletion, deletion review, requested move, or otherwise re-argue the article's title would fall under the broad umbrella of "edit warring" within the scope of the British Isles sanctions noted at Wikipedia:GS#Sanctions placed by the Wikipedia community (and recorded WP:GS/BI), and editors making such efforts would be subject to sanction. There comes a time when it is time to say "enough", and nine days of an AfD and two DRVs are probably it. – Jclemens (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Politics in the British Isles (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) An extended closing statement is now available, as demanded by numerous participants. I request the closer of this DRV to give a suitable extension to allow editor's time to respond to the new information. Spinning Spark 19:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] This was a very lengthy and contentious debate, but the closer's rationale is notable for its lack of any explanation of why zie weighed the debate as "keep". The closer dismisses one point raised, but shows no evidence of having considered the most significant argument: that this article is a POV fork of Ireland-United Kingdom relations. A succinct explanation of this was posted in the XfD, and the closer rejected my request to explain why this evidence was not reflected in his closure. POV forking is something which Wikipedia strives hard to avoid, and it is perverse that an XfD should be closed as "keep" in the face of clear evidence of POV forking which was supported by several contributors to the discussion. The result should have been "merge" or "delete". The closer says that he "made every effort not to allow my nationality to sway my judgement", but his userpage includes a "proud to be British" userbox. The closer would have been better advised to leave the closure to someone from an uninvolved nation, rather than making an unexplained closure which reflects the position taken in the debate by British editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Note that this debate was previously closed early as "delete", and that closure was discussed at DRV May 30, as a result of which the AFD was relisted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse keep closure The whole point of the DRV is that BrownHairedGirl disagrees with a closure that isn't ending in delete. It has little to nothing to do with the actual arguments presented in the AfD itself. The arguments in the AfD were essentially at a standstill, with each side saying British Isles meant one thing and the other side saying it meant another thing. And there was no way to properly rectify the arguments. But, more people voting in the AfD seemed to feel that the article should be kept and that the one side's argument was stronger. This seems pretty obvious and fully supports Spinningspark's closure. I already know that this DRV is just going to become AfD part 2. It's too contentious a subject to not become as such. Silver seren^C 01:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Like the closer, you are ignoring the evidence presented that the article is a POV fork. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] And you are ignoring the fact that I and others already argued against it being a fork in the AfD itself, which the closer would have taken into account. Furthermore, calling it a POV fork is insinuating that the creator made the article in a manner violating NPOV. Do you have anything to actually back this up or are you going to call out the term British Isles, which has already been refuted as an argument? Silver seren^C 02:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] And how do you rectify the POV fork accusation with the fact that the content of the article in question was copied wholesale over to the Ireland-UK relations article in an attempt to further the deletion of this article? If the content is a POV fork, then isn't it always a POV fork, including the information copied over to the other article? Silver seren^C 02:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] You appear not to understand what a POV fork is. The material was copied over because it covered the same topic. The problem with a POV fork is that different POVs should be covered in the same article, so the appropriate editorial solution is to merge the POV fork back into the main article and develop the material there. Once the two are merged, the fork ceases to exist. The question of whether the creating editor intended to create a POV fork is a user conduct issue, but the issue here is content. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] The issue is that whether the relations article is the "same topic" is exactly the nature of the disagreement in the AfD. It was exactly that that was being argued and the AfD consensus clearly shows that Politics in the British Isles is not the same topic as Ireland-UK relations. You may disagree with this consensus, sure, but disagreeing with the consensus opinion is no reason to start a DRV. Silver seren^C 02:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Rather than baldly asserting "consensus shows", please can you link to the policy-based arguments which use referenced reliable sources to refute the evidence presented by RA in the XfD? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] This really is AfD part 2 for you, isn't it? Arguing the consistencies on whether the Crown Dependencies are or are not a de facto part of the UK or if they are only so de jure or any of the other arguments that were made in the AfD aren't going to get us anywhere. We'd just go in circles again of yes they are and no they aren't. For example, here's your sources, but i'm quite sure there's sources that will say the opposite. That's not what we're here for though, to rehash these arguments. Silver seren^C 02:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] No, this isn't AFD part 2. This is about the failure of the closer to weigh the arguments made in the CFD, and the closer's failure to note the evidence that relations between Ireland and the UK includes relations between Ireland and the dependencies of the UK. The link you provide actually reinforces the point that the UK has responsibility for the International relations of the Crown Dependencies, and the Crown Dependencies act internationally only under the delegated authority of the United Kingdom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] I'm not even going to bother at this point. Everyone can see that you made this DRV because you disagree with the outcome of the AfD, but not because the consensus is actually wrong. Silver seren^C 03:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] I mean, seriously? This series of edits? You couldn't make it more obvious if you tried...though I guess you are trying, in a sense. Silver seren^C 03:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Umm, what's your point? The consensus at AFD was that it was a POV fork, and I have been editing the article to note some of the details of the POV and other problems in it, as set out on the article's talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] That's your opinion, not consensus. The uninvolved admin did not agree, and the article was proposed to be kept.--KarlB (talk) 04:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] You mean that a declared proud-to-be-British admin supported the view of British editors, and failed WP:ADMINACCT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Note: Do note that BrownHairedGirl is now going around making edits like this. That alone is clearly showing that this is a personal opinion issue on the topic for the nominator and not an inappropriate close for the AfD at all. Silver seren^C 02:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Please try to clam down. The edit summary of that edit is "remove "main article" link to an article which is not about political movements". If you examine the edit, you will see that is what the edit did. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] One would think politics of the region would include the political movements interconnecting parts of the region. Are you disagreeing with this? Silver seren^C 02:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Whatever "one would think", one should check rather than assuming. The reality is that the article which purports to be about the "politics of the region" is actually a POV fork of Ireland-United Kingdom relations, rather than about political movements. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to delete - First off, we have an entire page Wikipedia:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log dedicated to using the term "British Isles" in Wikipedia. The closer noted, "It is hard to hold it against KarlB for using this term when there is no widely recognised neutral alternative." There is no widely recognized neutral alternative because, as the deletes pointed out, this article is a POV fork of Ireland-United Kingdom relations and the relevant literature in this area predominately utilizes Ireland-United Kingdom relations rather than Politics in the British Isles. Also, the closer noted that "I have seen no evidence that the article was written with this POV." The delete argument related to being a POV fork relative to the Ireland-United Kingdom relations article, not POV relative to itself. The deletes also pointed out that the article is a synthesis of disparate topics created to construct within Wikipedia the notion of a common polity across the so-called British Isles. If you only look for source material referencing Politics in the British Isles rather than Ireland-United Kingdom relations, you will get only viewpoints brought out by the disputed British Isles term and be able to avoid viewpoints in the relevant Ireland-United Kingdom relations literature. The delete arguments were collective and not overcome by the keep arguments. Overturn to delete. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to delete. The closer did not address the issues raised in the deletion nomination and instead provided a paragraph of barely intelligible rambling. Note that I am not impartial. Although I missed the debate, I feel the article is an unnecessary redundant content fork of other articles and that the concept of "Politics in the British Isles" (not the content of the article) is original research (WP:SYNTH). Neither of these points, which were expounded by others in the debate, was addressed in the closing. — AjaxSmack 05:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Neither you, nor Uzma above, have addressed the consensus as a whole for the discussion, just stated your opinion on the article. At most, the discussion would go toward no consensus. There is clearly no consensus to delete in the discussion. Silver seren^C 05:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] The close was not made on the basis of no consensus. The close doesn't seem to have any coherent basis at all. — AjaxSmack 06:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] But you still aren't addressing the AfD. Do you really think the consensus of everyone in the AfD is to Delete? Silver seren^C 06:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] "Consensus...does not mean unanimity...[but] an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms." — AjaxSmack 06:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Okay, and? The main arguments boiled down to what is actually covered by the Ireland-UK relations article. And both arguments were really just as good as each other, it's pretty much an intractable disagreement. That would make it no consensus. With the higher amount of people deciding that Keep was the way to go over the opposing arguments, that would make it no consensus leaning toward keep. Nothing in there would be a delete. Silver seren^C 06:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to delete Can't fathom the reasoning behind the closure, this article is clearly a content fork and as such should have been deleted. Mo ainm~Talk 09:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Thank you for your opinion. However, DRV is not meant to be an extension of an AfD. Therefore, your opinion on what should be done with the article is irrelevant to the discussion. Voters are meant to be discussing the close and neutrally observing what the consensus was in the AfD, without applying any personal opinions about the article subject. Silver seren^C 19:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Comment from closer. In my defence, I would point out that I spent nearly 24 hours examining the arguments. I trailed the idea that the close would be brief well in advance of actually closing specifically to test for objections. I note that BHG was very active during that period, making in excess of 250 edits, but chose not to challenge that principle until after the discussion went against her. For the avoidance of doubt, I confirm that I considered all major threads of the arguments, including the argument that this article is a POV fork. I found no unarguable policy violation here, and without that, given the split in opinions in the debate, it was never going to be closed delete. The decision was between keep and no consensus. While that was a tough call, there is no difference for any practical purpose between "no consensus" and "keep without prejudice" to major reworking. Spinning Spark 10:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] The closer's comments about me are bizarre. He appears to be suggesting that it is somehow my fault that he provided an unexplained closure, or at least that I should have stopped him from botching a job he had appointed himself to. That is weird logic :( I had not commented in the discussion since 29 May (9 days before it was relisted, 17 days before it was closed), and in the last few days I was busy recategorising unrelated material rather than watching an AFD which had already been open for 3 weeks. I had not seen that the closer gave 8 hours notice of his intention to be brief, and was not aware of any intention to close the XfD until after it had been done. In any case the giving of notice does not justify the lack of a rationale for the closure. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] It is bizarre that the closer would try to pawn responsibility on to others for his/her own actions. With regard to, "The decision was between keep and no consensus." So, you didn't consider delete or alternatives to deletion at all? Despite there being (in bare numerical terms) more delete !votes than keeps and there being numerous suggestions for alternatives? Furthermore, there is an enormous difference between the community reaching a decision to "keep without prejudice" and the community not reaching a decision at all (i.e. no consensus). --RA (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] I've become rather involved in this now and probably shouldn't contribute a word in bold, but I have several points that I'd respectfully ask the closer to take into account. First, it's hard to separate this article from the so-called "British Isles Naming Dispute" (which means "Irish nationalists get butthurt about the naming conventions for geographical features"). There is a substantial contingent of Irish nationalists on Wikipedia who are trying to pretend that the name of the British Isles is controversial. This is not true anywhere outside Ireland, and attempts to further the Irish nationalist cause by interfering with Wikipedia articles are not something that we should condone. It's true that we Brits have treated the Irish very badly, historically speaking, and the Irish have excellent reasons to hate us—but Wikipedia is not a good place to further the dispute. Please could the DRV closer follow SpinningSpark's wise course in separating the so-called "British Isles Naming Dispute" from the substantive issues here. Second, only a complete idiot would turn a plausible search term into a redlink. Those who opine "overturn to delete", above, have simply not finished thinking this through. There are excellent reasons to remove this content, but a user might well search for "Politics in the British Isles". They should at minimum find a disambiguation page between Politics of the United Kingdom, Politics of the Republic of Ireland, Demography and politics of Northern Ireland and Ireland-United Kingdom relations. My own view has always been that this content should be deleted and then an immediate disambiguation page created. If this DRV decides on "overturn to delete", then please could the closer specifically say whether the disambiguation page would be appropriate, because I would like to create it in this space and I don't want to be accused of doing an end-run around the DRV when I do so. Third, although I have always been in favour of deleting this article and replacing it with a disambiguation page, and I still am, I also think that the correct reading of the debate was neither "keep" nor "delete". We failed to reach a consensus and an accurate close would have said so.—S Marshall T/C 10:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Overturn for a start if you're going to close a debate of that length and complexity then you need to provide an explanation of your reasoning in a closing statement. That people might complain about a closing statement is not a reason not to provide one. What closing statement was provided did not mention the main arguments for deletion, as noted by Uzma Gamal above. I cannot therefore see any evidence that the nominator has weighted the arguments correctly. The question of whether the title should have a disambiguation page is simply irrelevant, since such an action would not be precluded by a Delete closure and does not require the history of the page to do. Hut 8.5 11:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] ~~Overturn to delete~~ (Note: Strike out is not an endorsement) Despite a very lengthy discussion involving much argument, the closer chose not provide an explanation for their decision. Instead, he or she apparently decided that it was in the better interest of the discussion to restate a straw man argument made by one side rather than address the substantive arguments of WP:POVFORK, concerns around WP:SYNTH, WP:COAT, WP:MERGE, the suitability of the article as a subject for an encyclopedia, or the suitability of the article as a means to address the subject. All of which were raised during the discussion. Also, if he or she did not have the confidence to make decision, explain it and stand over it then he or she should not have made one. Another administrator willing to provide a rationale based on the discussion and with reference to policies and guidelines could have been found. The closer failed to address WP:CONSENSUS, which is not merely a head count but requires an assessment of the points and arguments raised. A fundamental problem I encountered throughout this discussion was the strident participation of editors who evidently knew little or nothing about the topic — but still felt compelled to "save the wiki" from some supposed censorship. Worse, keep voters cited references whilst very evidently having not read, or even seen, the books they were citing or even knowing for sure what they were about. Instead, they were clearly and evidently citing them, having found them on Google, based merely on their title. On several occasions, even, keep !voters cited books for which even a full reading of the title would show that they were not relevant to the subject! Instead, they cited only part of the title and left off the part of the title that showed the reference wasn't relevant! Keep !voters too engaged in strident defense of their position while evidently not even knowing the states involved or being able to fully distinguish them from each other. In one ludicrous moment, I had to cite three dictionaries and a UK government website to one who didn't know that "Britain" was a another name for the "UK". His/her response was to come back with a travel guide as evidence that we need an article politics. And these people were making arguments based on the finer points of UK constitutional law!? The same participant is still commenting above and still appears unable to distinguish the states involved. Additionally, in an AfD involving POVs over British and/or Irish politics, a British or Irish administrator should have the good sense to recuse themselves as being WP:INVOLVED (whether they are conscious of it or not). This is an international project. There are plenty of administrators of other nationalities that can resolve the issue with a neutral eye. Finally, Karl.bs' creation of a series of contentious "XXX of the British Isles" articles and category — including his creating of this one during the the CfD of a category of the same name, and despite having been asked not to — and Wikipedia:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log needs to be considered. These points points were also raised during the AfD. Very finally, the question of what do we do now wasn't addressed. It's easy for the keep !voters (including the closer) to now simply walk away. For those of us who edit regularly in this area, we are now left with a mess of an article, that is a fork of another, and an editors who can say, well, if there was an issue it wouldn't have passed AfD. It's a train wreck! WP:TNT and userification (or Wikipedia:Article Incubator) were raised during the AfD. Those would have been more sensible decisions that would have enabled a consensus to develop. However, it appears the closer only considered keep or delete and not alternatives to deletion (WP:ATD), even those that were raised during the discussion. --RA (talk) 11:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Good Lord. Did you really just say that no British administrator could possibly be neutral on this subject?—S Marshall T/C 13:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] No. I said that in XfDs involving POVs on British and Irish politics, British and Irish admins should acknowledge WP:INVOLVED. That doesn't mean that no British administrator can be neutral on such a topic (a converse would be to say that no Irish editor can be neutrally on such a topic, which is equally ludicrous). However, to quote WP:INVOLVED, "administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about." (My emphasis.) In fairness SpinningSpark acknowledged this to some part when he wrote, "I also apologise for being British - I had not realised that this could be an issue when I began this close and have made every effort not to allow my nationality to sway my judgement." Now, I'm not going to say whether he/she did or can act neutrally — or whether, given years of schooling and emersion in societal POVs on our respective politics, any of us can — what I am saying is that there are many other administrators of uninvolved nationality who could have closed the discussion with a neutral eye. Equally, I'm sure, others would raise an eyebrow if an administrator with the tricolor on their page closed the discussion with "delete". It is not unreasonable to raise one when an administrator with a Union Jack on their user page closes it with "keep" (particularly when accompanied by further no explanation for their decision save for a defense of the term British Isles). It is not the substantive point that I am making but it would have been better IMO if someone of a nationality other than British or Irish had closed the discussion. --RA (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] I don't think it's acceptable for our respected Irish contingent to try to control who can and cannot close debates related to this dispute. If there's an issue with a specific administrator then this of course can be raised, but I find it totally unreasonable for you to try to exclude a whole nationality on the basis that they're all collectively "involved".—S Marshall T/C 14:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] So far as I am concerned, it would have been equally inappropriate for an Irish editor to have closed this discussion. Per WP:INVOLVED, "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community", and I support that broad construction. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] This is just bizarre, and it helps illustrate exactly how extreme the anti-British sentiment gets among Irish nationalist wikipedians. "Involved" in this context means "performing an administrative action having participated in this dispute or similar disputes before doing so". It doesn't mean "being of the wrong nationality", for goodness' sake!—S Marshall T/C 15:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] S Marshall, I didn't express any "anti-British sentiment" never mind "extreme" anti-British sentiment (nor am I so taken with categorizationed as a "Irish nationalist wikipedian"). I explained what I meant in greater detail through the comment above at 13:24. You are misreprsenting my comments as an attack on British people — and as an expression of a desire to exercise control over the outcome of the discussions — that is wholly a mischaracterisation. --RA (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] I have replied on my talk page.—S Marshall T/C 17:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Comment Some editors here are on the verge of becoming disruptive. While some, to a greater or lesser extent, are attempting to improve the article as it stands, some others apparently won't take no for an answer and this whole thing is becoming like an Irish referendum. You know, keep voting till you get the desired result. Those attempting to work with the current article are being distracted by this disruption and are in danger of having a lot of good work simply thrown away. It is especially disappointing that two of the editors who seem to be most heavily involved are admins. If this conduct continues, where is the best place that that whole thing can be reported? Northern Arrow (talk) 13:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] As one of those attempting to work with the current article by starting to note some of the many ways in which it is misleading and POV-pushing (see Talk:Politics in the British Isles#POV_sections), I am not clear what disruption you see. Can you explain? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Who initiated this SECOND attempt (or the third debate) to have the article deleted? Northern Arrow (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Ah, now I see what you mean. You reckon that seeking a deletion review of an unexplained XFD closure is disruptive. That's an angle I hadn't considered. In making that assessment, you are apparently undeterred by the fact that 5 out of the 6 !voters so far recommend overturning the closure. You wondered whether this can be reported, and I suggest that the best option would be for you to open an WP:MFD on the whole DRV process. That will provide an opportunity for you to explain more about your novel view that reviewing problematic closues is disruptive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] BHG, you need to decide which side you're on. If you want the article deleted (or blown up and bulldozed as you put it), fine, comment here. If you want to improve the article, then focus on improving it, and not putting a tag on every single section or sentence which needs improvement. It looks to me a lot more like you're trying to cripple the article, covering it with tags, so that any editors who wander into this DRV will lean towards delete. It's a petty ploy, unbecoming an administrator. --KarlB (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] You BHG, and to a somewhat lesser extent RA, are being disruptive because as time goes on it's becoming more and more obvious that you'll stop at nothing to get this article deleted. I just looked at MFD and it's not appropriate. I'm more interested in somewhere to report your conduct. Northern Arrow (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] @KarlB and @NA. I want the wretched article deleted, because it is a pile of POV-pushing, and the purpose of this DRV is to review whether the deletion discussion should have led to that outcome. If the article is to stay, despite being a POV fork and a synthesis, then it needs a major rewrite to remove the blatant POV-pushing and synthesis in which KarlB has engaged to promote his postnationalist perspective. (See for example the section on Scholarship), which is nothing more than an exposition of one particular perspective.) Please feel free to go ahead and report my conduct if you want to. If tackling POV-pushing is unacceptable conduct, then take me to the gallows. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure The closer correctly read that there was no consensus to delete this article. The focus of the discussion seemed to be whether the Crown dependencies relations with other countries should be considered part of Ireland-UK relations. Unfortunately, in spite of all of the ink spilled on this topic, it's a red herring; the article is not just about international relations, but also about comparative politics, e.g. looking at domestic politics and domestic political structures and domestic political movements. So even if you establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Isle of Man is being managed by the UK when it deals with Ireland or Scotland or Jersey (and thus far, no evidence has been provided to support that), the parts of the article which look at comparative politics of the region would still fall outside that scope, because everyone agrees that where domestic politics is concerned, the Isle of Man is not part of the UK.--KarlB (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse outcome. The closer's failure to provide a rationale was poorly advised, although their expectation of extended, nonproductive followup debate was accurate. There's no consensus to be found here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] If you believe that "there's no consensus to be found here", why endorse a closure which says that there was a consensus? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] That's why I said "endorse outcome," ie, nondeletion, rather than simply endorse. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, I'm in agreement with HW here. Although I think a No Consensus close would have been better, I certainly don't think there was a consensus to delete the article, so the closer more or less read it correctly. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. The closer gave an unbiased account of the debate. It is obvious there's no consensus for deletion. Northern Arrow (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] ??? The closer gave no account of the debate, bias or unbiased. Explicitly so. That's one of the main reasons for this DRV. To quote the closer: "It is my normal practice on closing controversial debates to give details of my reasoning and assessment of the arguments. ... I have just made the decision not to give any such assessment in this case..." --RA (talk) 20:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] He did. here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spinningspark&diff=prev&oldid=497852995 and here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spinningspark&diff=prev&oldid=497852995 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northern Arrow (talk • contribs) 20:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Thanks. Though in fairness, virtually all of the discussion there is around reasoning why he/she didn't give an account of the debate. There are some tantalizingly cryptic clues. For example, the decision "was absolutely not based on a headcount" and "was entirely based on arguments and policy" and was his/her "assessment of the consensus." But there's no actual explanation as to what the reasoning was or, as you wrote, an "account of the debate". On a head count, by the way, 11 participants !voted to delete and 10 !voted to keep. An assessment of "no consensus" would require little explanation in that context. But an assessment of "keep" does provoke a question or two. --RA (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse because the close and the closer's statement were within administrative discretion. Personally, I would have favoured a "no consensus" decision. Thincat (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse a correct close, giving due weight to the arguments. I would not have closed without an extended comment, but the comment here does as well. I consider the delete arguments clear examples of non-reason among otherwise very good editors, but I've said why at the AfD and I am not going to repeat them. I suggest thatthose who considerthis a POV fork work instead on improving the article content. DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] How can be a POV fork be fixed without removing the fork? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:01, 18 June 2012‎ (UTC)[reply] Comment 2 from closer. It seems a pretty universal consensus that I was ill-advised not to give an extended closing statement. At least, I should not have declared it in advance and merely restricted myself to keeping it brief without comment. I will take that one on the chin and undertake that if the closer of this debate requires it, I will provide such a statement. Note that I will not take mere criticism of my failure as such a request, I will only do this if the closer explicitly concludes that there is some benefit to the encyclopedia in retrospectively providing such a statement. Fair warning, the statement, if provided, is likely to be very long. Spinning Spark 16:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Frankly speaking, if you close a difficult debate and you don't provide a statement then it is absolutely incumbent on you to provide one as soon as the close is challenged. Failure to properly explain your reasoning could easily tip a discussion like this from an endorse to an overturn. Its obvious that you need to provide further detail and you should do it now while the reasoning is still fresh in your mind. Its actually, and I rarely say this, quite dismissive to say that you will only provide a statement after this debate has ended. I'm minded to vote to overturn on that basis alone. Please do the needful. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] I accept the force of your comment, and that many others feel the same way, and will comply. It will take some time to draft. Spinning Spark 18:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Thank you for promising to do doing that. It is a great pity that the explanation will be available only some time after the deletion review opened, and after a significant number of editors have already made their contributions. I am also troubled by the closer's comments that the closing statement will "take some time to draft", when before closing you said that you had written "It is my normal practice on closing controversial debates to give details of my reasoning and assessment of the arguments. I have been keeping copious notes for that purpose". If you do indeed have those copious notes of your reasoning and assessment, it seems odd that you expect the drafting to be so time-consuming. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] That is a completley unjustified insuation you are hinting at there. I am tempted to post five pages of indecipherable hand-written notes in response to that and call it my review, but I will restrain myself and do as promised. Spinning Spark 23:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] I'll second this. I don't think poor faith accusations are helpful or deserved. God knows, it must have been painful enough to read through all of that without someone now implying you didn't. --RA (talk) 23:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] (edit conflict)Spinningspark, while at one level I want to give you credit for taking time to read through the discussion (it's a piece of work I would not envy undertaking), I think you made a number of mis-judgements here (as, to be honest, have I in putting so much of myself into this discussion). I don't think these mis-judgemetns are anything that would undermine your credibility or anyone's good faith in you — but they are things that undermine the decision. And people need to have confidence in the decision. First, I appreciate your offer to now explain your rationale, but in fairness you were asked for some reasoning on your user page and your answers were vague and made little reference to the discussion. Writing up a rationale now, I think, may look like retrofitting a rationale to a decision that you already made. Secondly (and I really do mean "secondly"), while at least one other editor believes this to be anti-British sentiment, I don't think it is wise for either a British or Irish editor to close a discussion like this that involves accusations of British vs. Irish POV. As you acknowledged yourself, that can attract suspicion of bias (including unintentional bias). I'd say the same if an Irish editor had closed this discussion with "delete" — and I would have said it stronger again if they had done so while refusing to give a reason. (To be clear, this isn't an accusation of poor faith on your part.) I dread a re-listing of this AfD, but I think it would be better to have a run-through, take in a few more comments and have another admin (preferably one from outside of the archipelago) close the discussion with a rationale for their decision showing they listened to the discussion, balanced the views and arrived at a decision in the interest of the community. That might draw a wall of text, like you said — but that's not a good enough reason not to give a rationale when closing such a lengthy and detailed debate like this. --RA (talk) 23:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] I disagree with the secondly. An admin is selected based on their ability to neutrally apply wp policies. We have admins who are police officers, musicians, Russians, and fans of death metal. None of these things should hold back an admin from closing a discussion about those topics, provided they have not been involved in the previous discussions. I will also add that BHGs insinuation above is in bad faith. Spinningspark took on a difficult decision, spent time, and made a call. We should be respectful of that.--KarlB (talk) 01:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Spinngspark made a call, but without providing an explanation of that call either in the closure or when asked for such an explanation after the closure. This is really basic stuff of admin policy: Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. I am not respectful of the failure to perform one of the basic duties of an admin. I welcome Spinningspark's belated acknowledgement of his error, but I share RA's concern that writing a rationale now may "look like retrofitting a rationale to a decision that you already made" ... and it may also look like writing a rationale to off head issues identified at DRV. Maybe this is being done in good faith, but there are enough question-marks over the whole thing now that it would be better for the community and better for Spinngspark if this closure did not stand. Whatever the outcome of this debate, it would stand more chance of being accepted if it was closed properly, by an admin who accepted WP:ADMINACCT without having to be dragged there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Karl, admins are also expected to exercise judgement for when to let someone else close a discussion. Spinningspark, to his credit, acknowledged that it was something he had not initially considered but recognised later as being a potential problem. That sort of honesty and willingness to reflect on a decision is something that I actually admire about Spinningspark's conduct in this affair. The point however is a secondary one, like I stressed, though a complicating factor. --RA (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] I understand that is the POV of you and BHG. It is not mine, and I agree with S. Marshall on this. In any case, enough has been said about SpinningSpark's nationality.--KarlB (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Some minor quibbles with Spinngspark's extended close, but otherwise I am happy that it is within discretion. --RA (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] I'll add one comment though, which persists to bother me. The closer remarked: I found that the delete viewpoint, while it must still be taken into consideration, had no basis in policy or guidelines. To be sure, plenty of policy arguments were advanced against the creation of POV forks, but no policy arguments why, in the context of this article a POV fork existed. That is, no policy, guideline or essay was named which indicates international relations are to be taken as synonymous with politics, or that a region of only two nations may not have an article on its politics. Because of this, the argument was given proportionately less weight. This places an unreasonable burden on policy. In essence it means, you can cite a policy or guidelines (in this case WP:POVFORK) but unless that policy or guidelines explicitly states that it applies in the class of article you are applying it to then it doesn't count. Many of our policies and guidelines are broad principles. It is the principle that is applied. In this case, the argument was that in a region consisting of only two states, an article on the politics of the region is effectively the same as an article on the relations of those two states. You can disagree with that, but demanding that there be a specific policy or guidelines stating how to interpret WP:POVFORK in every circumstance in which it may apply is an unreasonable demand on policy. --RA (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Comment (I "endorsed" above). I have returned here because of the suggestion that people commenting earlier might have developed a different view had they been able to refer to a full closing rationale. The closer's extended statement is thoughtful, careful and, for me, helpful—I had not personally bothered to investigate the relevance of the book The Politics of the British Isles nor had I probed into whether the creation of this article might have been "pointy". I still absolutely accept the AFD close and thank SpinningSpark for doing all this work. Thincat (talk) 08:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse (do not delete). There was not a consensus to delete. Forking and OR issues are not well resolved by deletion. It's hard. Do not renominate for at least 6 months. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] weak endorse now that there is a closing statement (and a long and well-written one at that). I think no consensus was the better close as there was no consensus there. But keep may be within admin discretion. I'd have no objection to an "overturn to NC" outcome of this DRV. As a note I didn't read the whole AfD--just too long--so I admit I could be missing something, but reading the closing notes and this DRV, I don't think I am. Hobit (talk) 02:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to no consensus (Having stuck my earlier !vote) There wasn't one, and there is a significant difference (even if the outcome for the article is the same) between consensus to "keep" and "no consensus" at all. --RA (talk) 11:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to no consensus Having read the extended closing statement, I agree it was within the discretion of the closing admin to weigh the arguments according to his viewpoints. As much as I might disagree with whatever weighting he assigned to the various points put forward, his closing statement doesn't provide a clear rationale on why the Keep argument was so much stronge. I believe the correct closing should have been "no consensus". --HighKing (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Politics in the British Isles – No consensus to overturn. Well over half of those expressing an opinion opined that the closure was not improper. While there is certainly a great deal of sentiment on both sides of the debate, this has been through DRV twice now, with a majority favoring retaining the article at its current title in each case. As such, any near-future (that is, within the next six months) efforts to bring this article up for deletion, deletion review, requested move, or otherwise re-argue the article's title would fall under the broad umbrella of "edit warring" within the scope of the British Isles sanctions noted at Wikipedia:GS#Sanctions placed by the Wikipedia community (and recorded WP:GS/BI), and editors making such efforts would be subject to sanction. There comes a time when it is time to say "enough", and nine days of an AfD and two DRVs are probably it. – Jclemens (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

An extended closing statement is now available, as demanded by numerous participants. I request the closer of this DRV to give a suitable extension to allow editor's time to respond to the new information. Spinning Spark 19:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was a very lengthy and contentious debate, but the closer's rationale is notable for its lack of any explanation of why zie weighed the debate as "keep". The closer dismisses one point raised, but shows no evidence of having considered the most significant argument: that this article is a POV fork of Ireland-United Kingdom relations. A succinct explanation of this was posted in the XfD, and the closer rejected my request to explain why this evidence was not reflected in his closure.
POV forking is something which Wikipedia strives hard to avoid, and it is perverse that an XfD should be closed as "keep" in the face of clear evidence of POV forking which was supported by several contributors to the discussion. The result should have been "merge" or "delete".
The closer says that he "made every effort not to allow my nationality to sway my judgement", but his userpage includes a "proud to be British" userbox. The closer would have been better advised to leave the closure to someone from an uninvolved nation, rather than making an unexplained closure which reflects the position taken in the debate by British editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this debate was previously closed early as "delete", and that closure was discussed at DRV May 30, as a result of which the AFD was relisted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse keep closure The whole point of the DRV is that BrownHairedGirl disagrees with a closure that isn't ending in delete. It has little to nothing to do with the actual arguments presented in the AfD itself. The arguments in the AfD were essentially at a standstill, with each side saying British Isles meant one thing and the other side saying it meant another thing. And there was no way to properly rectify the arguments. But, more people voting in the AfD seemed to feel that the article should be kept and that the one side's argument was stronger. This seems pretty obvious and fully supports Spinningspark's closure. I already know that this DRV is just going to become AfD part 2. It's too contentious a subject to not become as such. Silver seren^C 01:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like the closer, you are ignoring the evidence presented that the article is a POV fork. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And you are ignoring the fact that I and others already argued against it being a fork in the AfD itself, which the closer would have taken into account. Furthermore, calling it a POV fork is insinuating that the creator made the article in a manner violating NPOV. Do you have anything to actually back this up or are you going to call out the term British Isles, which has already been refuted as an argument? Silver seren^C 02:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And how do you rectify the POV fork accusation with the fact that the content of the article in question was copied wholesale over to the Ireland-UK relations article in an attempt to further the deletion of this article? If the content is a POV fork, then isn't it always a POV fork, including the information copied over to the other article? Silver seren^C 02:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You appear not to understand what a POV fork is. The material was copied over because it covered the same topic. The problem with a POV fork is that different POVs should be covered in the same article, so the appropriate editorial solution is to merge the POV fork back into the main article and develop the material there. Once the two are merged, the fork ceases to exist.

The question of whether the creating editor intended to create a POV fork is a user conduct issue, but the issue here is content. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that whether the relations article is the "same topic" is exactly the nature of the disagreement in the AfD. It was exactly that that was being argued and the AfD consensus clearly shows that Politics in the British Isles is not the same topic as Ireland-UK relations. You may disagree with this consensus, sure, but disagreeing with the consensus opinion is no reason to start a DRV. Silver seren^C 02:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than baldly asserting "consensus shows", please can you link to the policy-based arguments which use referenced reliable sources to refute the evidence presented by RA in the XfD? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This really is AfD part 2 for you, isn't it? Arguing the consistencies on whether the Crown Dependencies are or are not a de facto part of the UK or if they are only so de jure or any of the other arguments that were made in the AfD aren't going to get us anywhere. We'd just go in circles again of yes they are and no they aren't. For example, here's your sources, but i'm quite sure there's sources that will say the opposite. That's not what we're here for though, to rehash these arguments. Silver seren^C 02:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, this isn't AFD part 2. This is about the failure of the closer to weigh the arguments made in the CFD, and the closer's failure to note the evidence that relations between Ireland and the UK includes relations between Ireland and the dependencies of the UK.

The link you provide actually reinforces the point that the UK has responsibility for the International relations of the Crown Dependencies, and the Crown Dependencies act internationally only under the delegated authority of the United Kingdom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even going to bother at this point. Everyone can see that you made this DRV because you disagree with the outcome of the AfD, but not because the consensus is actually wrong. Silver seren^C 03:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, seriously? This series of edits? You couldn't make it more obvious if you tried...though I guess you are trying, in a sense. Silver seren^C 03:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, what's your point? The consensus at AFD was that it was a POV fork, and I have been editing the article to note some of the details of the POV and other problems in it, as set out on the article's talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion, not consensus. The uninvolved admin did not agree, and the article was proposed to be kept.--KarlB (talk) 04:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You mean that a declared proud-to-be-British admin supported the view of British editors, and failed WP:ADMINACCT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Do note that BrownHairedGirl is now going around making edits like this. That alone is clearly showing that this is a personal opinion issue on the topic for the nominator and not an inappropriate close for the AfD at all. Silver seren^C 02:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to clam down. The edit summary of that edit is "remove "main article" link to an article which is not about political movements". If you examine the edit, you will see that is what the edit did. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One would think politics of the region would include the political movements interconnecting parts of the region. Are you disagreeing with this? Silver seren^C 02:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever "one would think", one should check rather than assuming. The reality is that the article which purports to be about the "politics of the region" is actually a POV fork of Ireland-United Kingdom relations, rather than about political movements. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete - First off, we have an entire page Wikipedia:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log dedicated to using the term "British Isles" in Wikipedia. The closer noted, "It is hard to hold it against KarlB for using this term when there is no widely recognised neutral alternative." There is no widely recognized neutral alternative because, as the deletes pointed out, this article is a POV fork of Ireland-United Kingdom relations and the relevant literature in this area predominately utilizes Ireland-United Kingdom relations rather than Politics in the British Isles. Also, the closer noted that "I have seen no evidence that the article was written with this POV." The delete argument related to being a POV fork relative to the Ireland-United Kingdom relations article, not POV relative to itself. The deletes also pointed out that the article is a synthesis of disparate topics created to construct within Wikipedia the notion of a common polity across the so-called British Isles. If you only look for source material referencing Politics in the British Isles rather than Ireland-United Kingdom relations, you will get only viewpoints brought out by the disputed British Isles term and be able to avoid viewpoints in the relevant Ireland-United Kingdom relations literature. The delete arguments were collective and not overcome by the keep arguments. Overturn to delete. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to delete. The closer did not address the issues raised in the deletion nomination and instead provided a paragraph of barely intelligible rambling. Note that I am not impartial. Although I missed the debate, I feel the article is an unnecessary redundant content fork of other articles and that the concept of "Politics in the British Isles" (not the content of the article) is original research (WP:SYNTH). Neither of these points, which were expounded by others in the debate, was addressed in the closing. — AjaxSmack 05:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither you, nor Uzma above, have addressed the consensus as a whole for the discussion, just stated your opinion on the article. At most, the discussion would go toward no consensus. There is clearly no consensus to delete in the discussion. Silverseren^C 05:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The close was not made on the basis of no consensus. The close doesn't seem to have any coherent basis at all. — AjaxSmack 06:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - But you still aren't addressing the AfD. Do you really think the consensus of everyone in the AfD is to Delete? Silverseren^C 06:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Consensus...does not mean unanimity...[but] an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms." — AjaxSmack 06:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, and? The main arguments boiled down to what is actually covered by the Ireland-UK relations article. And both arguments were really just as good as each other, it's pretty much an intractable disagreement. That would make it no consensus. With the higher amount of people deciding that Keep was the way to go over the opposing arguments, that would make it no consensus leaning toward keep. Nothing in there would be a delete. Silver seren^C 06:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete Can't fathom the reasoning behind the closure, this article is clearly a content fork and as such should have been deleted. Mo ainm~Talk 09:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your opinion. However, DRV is not meant to be an extension of an AfD. Therefore, your opinion on what should be done with the article is irrelevant to the discussion. Voters are meant to be discussing the close and neutrally observing what the consensus was in the AfD, without applying any personal opinions about the article subject. Silver seren^C 19:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from closer. In my defence, I would point out that I spent nearly 24 hours examining the arguments. I trailed the idea that the close would be brief well in advance of actually closing specifically to test for objections. I note that BHG was very active during that period, making in excess of 250 edits, but chose not to challenge that principle until after the discussion went against her. For the avoidance of doubt, I confirm that I considered all major threads of the arguments, including the argument that this article is a POV fork. I found no unarguable policy violation here, and without that, given the split in opinions in the debate, it was never going to be closed delete. The decision was between keep and no consensus. While that was a tough call, there is no difference for any practical purpose between "no consensus" and "keep without prejudice" to major reworking. Spinning Spark 10:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The closer's comments about me are bizarre. He appears to be suggesting that it is somehow my fault that he provided an unexplained closure, or at least that I should have stopped him from botching a job he had appointed himself to. That is weird logic :(
  I had not commented in the discussion since 29 May (9 days before it was relisted, 17 days before it was closed), and in the last few days I was busy recategorising unrelated material rather than watching an AFD which had already been open for 3 weeks. I had not seen that the closer gave 8 hours notice of his intention to be brief, and was not aware of any intention to close the XfD until after it had been done. In any case the giving of notice does not justify the lack of a rationale for the closure. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is bizarre that the closer would try to pawn responsibility on to others for his/her own actions.
  - With regard to, "The decision was between keep and no consensus." So, you didn't consider delete or alternatives to deletion at all? Despite there being (in bare numerical terms) more delete !votes than keeps and there being numerous suggestions for alternatives? Furthermore, there is an enormous difference between the community reaching a decision to "keep without prejudice" and the community not reaching a decision at all (i.e. no consensus). --RA (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've become rather involved in this now and probably shouldn't contribute a word in bold, but I have several points that I'd respectfully ask the closer to take into account.
First, it's hard to separate this article from the so-called "British Isles Naming Dispute" (which means "Irish nationalists get butthurt about the naming conventions for geographical features"). There is a substantial contingent of Irish nationalists on Wikipedia who are trying to pretend that the name of the British Isles is controversial. This is not true anywhere outside Ireland, and attempts to further the Irish nationalist cause by interfering with Wikipedia articles are not something that we should condone. It's true that we Brits have treated the Irish very badly, historically speaking, and the Irish have excellent reasons to hate us—but Wikipedia is not a good place to further the dispute. Please could the DRV closer follow SpinningSpark's wise course in separating the so-called "British Isles Naming Dispute" from the substantive issues here.
Second, only a complete idiot would turn a plausible search term into a redlink. Those who opine "overturn to delete", above, have simply not finished thinking this through. There are excellent reasons to remove this content, but a user might well search for "Politics in the British Isles". They should at minimum find a disambiguation page between Politics of the United Kingdom, Politics of the Republic of Ireland, Demography and politics of Northern Ireland and Ireland-United Kingdom relations. My own view has always been that this content should be deleted and then an immediate disambiguation page created. If this DRV decides on "overturn to delete", then please could the closer specifically say whether the disambiguation page would be appropriate, because I would like to create it in this space and I don't want to be accused of doing an end-run around the DRV when I do so.
Third, although I have always been in favour of deleting this article and replacing it with a disambiguation page, and I still am, I also think that the correct reading of the debate was neither "keep" nor "delete". We failed to reach a consensus and an accurate close would have said so.—S Marshall T/C 10:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn for a start if you're going to close a debate of that length and complexity then you need to provide an explanation of your reasoning in a closing statement. That people might complain about a closing statement is not a reason not to provide one. What closing statement was provided did not mention the main arguments for deletion, as noted by Uzma Gamal above. I cannot therefore see any evidence that the nominator has weighted the arguments correctly. The question of whether the title should have a disambiguation page is simply irrelevant, since such an action would not be precluded by a Delete closure and does not require the history of the page to do. Hut 8.5 11:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Overturn to delete~~ (Note: Strike out is not an endorsement) Despite a very lengthy discussion involving much argument, the closer chose not provide an explanation for their decision. Instead, he or she apparently decided that it was in the better interest of the discussion to restate a straw man argument made by one side rather than address the substantive arguments of WP:POVFORK, concerns around WP:SYNTH, WP:COAT, WP:MERGE, the suitability of the article as a subject for an encyclopedia, or the suitability of the article as a means to address the subject. All of which were raised during the discussion. Also, if he or she did not have the confidence to make decision, explain it and stand over it then he or she should not have made one. Another administrator willing to provide a rationale based on the discussion and with reference to policies and guidelines could have been found.
The closer failed to address WP:CONSENSUS, which is not merely a head count but requires an assessment of the points and arguments raised. A fundamental problem I encountered throughout this discussion was the strident participation of editors who evidently knew little or nothing about the topic — but still felt compelled to "save the wiki" from some supposed censorship. Worse, keep voters cited references whilst very evidently having not read, or even seen, the books they were citing or even knowing for sure what they were about. Instead, they were clearly and evidently citing them, having found them on Google, based merely on their title. On several occasions, even, keep !voters cited books for which even a full reading of the title would show that they were not relevant to the subject! Instead, they cited only part of the title and left off the part of the title that showed the reference wasn't relevant! Keep !voters too engaged in strident defense of their position while evidently not even knowing the states involved or being able to fully distinguish them from each other. In one ludicrous moment, I had to cite three dictionaries and a UK government website to one who didn't know that "Britain" was a another name for the "UK". His/her response was to come back with a travel guide as evidence that we need an article politics. And these people were making arguments based on the finer points of UK constitutional law!? The same participant is still commenting above and still appears unable to distinguish the states involved.
Additionally, in an AfD involving POVs over British and/or Irish politics, a British or Irish administrator should have the good sense to recuse themselves as being WP:INVOLVED (whether they are conscious of it or not). This is an international project. There are plenty of administrators of other nationalities that can resolve the issue with a neutral eye.
Finally, Karl.bs' creation of a series of contentious "XXX of the British Isles" articles and category — including his creating of this one during the the CfD of a category of the same name, and despite having been asked not to — and Wikipedia:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log needs to be considered. These points points were also raised during the AfD.
Very finally, the question of what do we do now wasn't addressed. It's easy for the keep !voters (including the closer) to now simply walk away. For those of us who edit regularly in this area, we are now left with a mess of an article, that is a fork of another, and an editors who can say, well, if there was an issue it wouldn't have passed AfD. It's a train wreck! WP:TNT and userification (or Wikipedia:Article Incubator) were raised during the AfD. Those would have been more sensible decisions that would have enabled a consensus to develop. However, it appears the closer only considered keep or delete and not alternatives to deletion (WP:ATD), even those that were raised during the discussion. --RA (talk) 11:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good Lord. Did you really just say that no British administrator could possibly be neutral on this subject?—S Marshall T/C 13:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. I said that in XfDs involving POVs on British and Irish politics, British and Irish admins should acknowledge WP:INVOLVED. That doesn't mean that no British administrator can be neutral on such a topic (a converse would be to say that no Irish editor can be neutrally on such a topic, which is equally ludicrous). However, to quote WP:INVOLVED, "administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about." (My emphasis.) In fairness SpinningSpark acknowledged this to some part when he wrote, "I also apologise for being British - I had not realised that this could be an issue when I began this close and have made every effort not to allow my nationality to sway my judgement."

Now, I'm not going to say whether he/she did or can act neutrally — or whether, given years of schooling and emersion in societal POVs on our respective politics, any of us can — what I am saying is that there are many other administrators of uninvolved nationality who could have closed the discussion with a neutral eye. Equally, I'm sure, others would raise an eyebrow if an administrator with the tricolor on their page closed the discussion with "delete". It is not unreasonable to raise one when an administrator with a Union Jack on their user page closes it with "keep" (particularly when accompanied by further no explanation for their decision save for a defense of the term British Isles).

It is not the substantive point that I am making but it would have been better IMO if someone of a nationality other than British or Irish had closed the discussion. --RA (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's acceptable for our respected Irish contingent to try to control who can and cannot close debates related to this dispute. If there's an issue with a specific administrator then this of course can be raised, but I find it totally unreasonable for you to try to exclude a whole nationality on the basis that they're all collectively "involved".—S Marshall T/C 14:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So far as I am concerned, it would have been equally inappropriate for an Irish editor to have closed this discussion. Per WP:INVOLVED, "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community", and I support that broad construction. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is just bizarre, and it helps illustrate exactly how extreme the anti-British sentiment gets among Irish nationalist wikipedians. "Involved" in this context means "performing an administrative action having participated in this dispute or similar disputes before doing so". It doesn't mean "being of the wrong nationality", for goodness' sake!—S Marshall T/C 15:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
S Marshall, I didn't express any "anti-British sentiment" never mind "extreme" anti-British sentiment (nor am I so taken with categorizationed as a "Irish nationalist wikipedian"). I explained what I meant in greater detail through the comment above at 13:24. You are misreprsenting my comments as an attack on British people — and as an expression of a desire to exercise control over the outcome of the discussions — that is wholly a mischaracterisation. --RA (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have replied on my talk page.—S Marshall T/C 17:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some editors here are on the verge of becoming disruptive. While some, to a greater or lesser extent, are attempting to improve the article as it stands, some others apparently won't take no for an answer and this whole thing is becoming like an Irish referendum. You know, keep voting till you get the desired result. Those attempting to work with the current article are being distracted by this disruption and are in danger of having a lot of good work simply thrown away. It is especially disappointing that two of the editors who seem to be most heavily involved are admins. If this conduct continues, where is the best place that that whole thing can be reported? Northern Arrow (talk) 13:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As one of those attempting to work with the current article by starting to note some of the many ways in which it is misleading and POV-pushing (see Talk:Politics in the British Isles#POV_sections), I am not clear what disruption you see. Can you explain? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Who initiated this SECOND attempt (or the third debate) to have the article deleted? Northern Arrow (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now I see what you mean. You reckon that seeking a deletion review of an unexplained XFD closure is disruptive. That's an angle I hadn't considered.

In making that assessment, you are apparently undeterred by the fact that 5 out of the 6 !voters so far recommend overturning the closure.

You wondered whether this can be reported, and I suggest that the best option would be for you to open an WP:MFD on the whole DRV process. That will provide an opportunity for you to explain more about your novel view that reviewing problematic closues is disruptive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BHG, you need to decide which side you're on. If you want the article deleted (or blown up and bulldozed as you put it), fine, comment here. If you want to improve the article, then focus on improving it, and not putting a tag on every single section or sentence which needs improvement. It looks to me a lot more like you're trying to cripple the article, covering it with tags, so that any editors who wander into this DRV will lean towards delete. It's a petty ploy, unbecoming an administrator. --KarlB (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You BHG, and to a somewhat lesser extent RA, are being disruptive because as time goes on it's becoming more and more obvious that you'll stop at nothing to get this article deleted. I just looked at MFD and it's not appropriate. I'm more interested in somewhere to report your conduct. Northern Arrow (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@KarlB and @NA. I want the wretched article deleted, because it is a pile of POV-pushing, and the purpose of this DRV is to review whether the deletion discussion should have led to that outcome.

If the article is to stay, despite being a POV fork and a synthesis, then it needs a major rewrite to remove the blatant POV-pushing and synthesis in which KarlB has engaged to promote his postnationalist perspective. (See for example the section on Scholarship), which is nothing more than an exposition of one particular perspective.)

Please feel free to go ahead and report my conduct if you want to. If tackling POV-pushing is unacceptable conduct, then take me to the gallows. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure The closer correctly read that there was no consensus to delete this article. The focus of the discussion seemed to be whether the Crown dependencies relations with other countries should be considered part of Ireland-UK relations. Unfortunately, in spite of all of the ink spilled on this topic, it's a red herring; the article is not just about international relations, but also about comparative politics, e.g. looking at domestic politics and domestic political structures and domestic political movements. So even if you establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Isle of Man is being managed by the UK when it deals with Ireland or Scotland or Jersey (and thus far, no evidence has been provided to support that), the parts of the article which look at comparative politics of the region would still fall outside that scope, because everyone agrees that where domestic politics is concerned, the Isle of Man is *not* part of the UK.--KarlB (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse outcome. The closer's failure to provide a rationale was poorly advised, although their expectation of extended, nonproductive followup debate was accurate. There's no consensus to be found here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that "there's no consensus to be found here", why endorse a closure which says that there was a consensus? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I said "endorse outcome," ie, nondeletion, rather than simply endorse. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, I'm in agreement with HW here. Although I think a No Consensus close would have been better, I certainly don't think there was a consensus to delete the article, so the closer more or less read it correctly. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The closer gave an unbiased account of the debate. It is obvious there's no consensus for deletion. Northern Arrow (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
??? The closer gave no account of the debate, bias or unbiased. Explicitly so. That's one of the main reasons for this DRV. To quote the closer: "It is my normal practice on closing controversial debates to give details of my reasoning and assessment of the arguments. ... I have just made the decision not to give any such assessment in this case..." --RA (talk) 20:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He did. here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spinningspark&diff=prev&oldid=497852995

and here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spinningspark&diff=prev&oldid=497852995 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northern Arrow (talk • contribs) 20:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Though in fairness, virtually all of the discussion there is around reasoning why he/she didn't give an account of the debate. There are some tantalizingly cryptic clues. For example, the decision "was absolutely not based on a headcount" and "was entirely based on arguments and policy" and was his/her "assessment of the consensus." But there's no actual explanation as to what the reasoning was or, as you wrote, an "account of the debate".

On a head count, by the way, 11 participants !voted to delete and 10 !voted to keep. An assessment of "no consensus" would require little explanation in that context. But an assessment of "keep" does provoke a question or two. --RA (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse because the close and the closer's statement were within administrative discretion. Personally, I would have favoured a "no consensus" decision. Thincat (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse a correct close, giving due weight to the arguments. I would not have closed without an extended comment, but the comment here does as well. I consider the delete arguments clear examples of non-reason among otherwise very good editors, but I've said why at the AfD and I am not going to repeat them. I suggest thatthose who considerthis a POV fork work instead on improving the article content. DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How can be a POV fork be fixed without removing the fork? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:01, 18 June 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2 from closer. It seems a pretty universal consensus that I was ill-advised not to give an extended closing statement. At least, I should not have declared it in advance and merely restricted myself to keeping it brief without comment. I will take that one on the chin and undertake that if the closer of this debate requires it, I will provide such a statement. Note that I will not take mere criticism of my failure as such a request, I will only do this if the closer explicitly concludes that there is some benefit to the encyclopedia in retrospectively providing such a statement. Fair warning, the statement, if provided, is likely to be very long. Spinning Spark 16:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Frankly speaking, if you close a difficult debate and you don't provide a statement then it is absolutely incumbent on you to provide one as soon as the close is challenged. Failure to properly explain your reasoning could easily tip a discussion like this from an endorse to an overturn. Its obvious that you need to provide further detail and you should do it now while the reasoning is still fresh in your mind. Its actually, and I rarely say this, quite dismissive to say that you will only provide a statement after this debate has ended. I'm minded to vote to overturn on that basis alone. Please do the needful. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I accept the force of your comment, and that many others feel the same way, and will comply. It will take some time to draft. Spinning Spark 18:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you for promising to do doing that. It is a great pity that the explanation will be available only some time after the deletion review opened, and after a significant number of editors have already made their contributions.
      I am also troubled by the closer's comments that the closing statement will "take some time to draft", when before closing you said that you had written "It is my normal practice on closing controversial debates to give details of my reasoning and assessment of the arguments. I have been keeping copious notes for that purpose". If you do indeed have those copious notes of your reasoning and assessment, it seems odd that you expect the drafting to be so time-consuming. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - That is a completley unjustified insuation you are hinting at there. I am tempted to post five pages of indecipherable hand-written notes in response to that and call it my review, but I will restrain myself and do as promised. Spinning Spark 23:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll second this. I don't think poor faith accusations are helpful or deserved. God knows, it must have been painful enough to read through all of that without someone now implying you didn't. --RA (talk) 23:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - (edit conflict)Spinningspark, while at one level I want to give you credit for taking time to read through the discussion (it's a piece of work I would not envy undertaking), I think you made a number of mis-judgements here (as, to be honest, have I in putting so much of myself into this discussion). I don't think these mis-judgemetns are anything that would undermine your credibility or anyone's good faith in you — but they are things that undermine the decision. And people need to have confidence in the decision.
      First, I appreciate your offer to now explain your rationale, but in fairness you were asked for some reasoning on your user page and your answers were vague and made little reference to the discussion. Writing up a rationale now, I think, may look like retrofitting a rationale to a decision that you already made.
      Secondly (and I really do mean "secondly"), while at least one other editor believes this to be anti-British sentiment, I don't think it is wise for either a British or Irish editor to close a discussion like this that involves accusations of British vs. Irish POV. As you acknowledged yourself, that can attract suspicion of bias (including unintentional bias). I'd say the same if an Irish editor had closed this discussion with "delete" — and I would have said it stronger again if they had done so while refusing to give a reason. (To be clear, this isn't an accusation of poor faith on your part.)
      I dread a re-listing of this AfD, but I think it would be better to have a run-through, take in a few more comments and have another admin (preferably one from outside of the archipelago) close the discussion with a rationale for their decision showing they listened to the discussion, balanced the views and arrived at a decision in the interest of the community. That might draw a wall of text, like you said — but that's not a good enough reason not to give a rationale when closing such a lengthy and detailed debate like this. --RA (talk) 23:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I disagree with the secondly. An admin is selected based on their ability to neutrally apply wp policies. We have admins who are police officers, musicians, Russians, and fans of death metal. None of these things should hold back an admin from closing a discussion about those topics, provided they have not been involved in the previous discussions. I will also add that BHGs insinuation above is in bad faith. Spinningspark took on a difficult decision, spent time, and made a call. We should be respectful of that.--KarlB (talk) 01:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Spinngspark made a call, but without providing an explanation of that call either in the closure or when asked for such an explanation after the closure. This is really basic stuff of admin policy: Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. I am not respectful of the failure to perform one of the basic duties of an admin.
        I welcome Spinningspark's belated acknowledgement of his error, but I share RA's concern that writing a rationale now may "look like retrofitting a rationale to a decision that you already made" ... and it may also look like writing a rationale to off head issues identified at DRV. Maybe this is being done in good faith, but there are enough question-marks over the whole thing now that it would be better for the community and better for Spinngspark if this closure did not stand. Whatever the outcome of this debate, it would stand more chance of being accepted if it was closed properly, by an admin who accepted WP:ADMINACCT without having to be dragged there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Karl, admins are also expected to exercise judgement for when to let someone else close a discussion. Spinningspark, to his credit, acknowledged that it was something he had not initially considered but recognised later as being a potential problem. That sort of honesty and willingness to reflect on a decision is something that I actually admire about Spinningspark's conduct in this affair.
        The point however is a secondary one, like I stressed, though a complicating factor. --RA (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I understand that is the POV of you and BHG. It is not mine, and I agree with S. Marshall on this. In any case, enough has been said about SpinningSpark's nationality.--KarlB (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some minor quibbles with Spinngspark's extended close, but otherwise I am happy that it is within discretion. --RA (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add one comment though, which persists to bother me. The closer remarked:

I found that the delete viewpoint, while it must still be taken into consideration, had no basis in policy or guidelines. To be sure, plenty of policy arguments were advanced against the creation of POV forks, but no policy arguments why, in the context of this article a POV fork existed. That is, no policy, guideline or essay was named which indicates international relations are to be taken as synonymous with politics, or that a region of only two nations may not have an article on its politics. Because of this, the argument was given proportionately less weight.

This places an unreasonable burden on policy. In essence it means, you can cite a policy or guidelines (in this case WP:POVFORK) but unless that policy or guidelines explicitly states that it applies in the class of article you are applying it to then it doesn't count. Many of our policies and guidelines are broad principles. It is the principle that is applied.

In this case, the argument was that in a region consisting of only two states, an article on the politics of the region is effectively the same as an article on the relations of those two states. You can disagree with that, but demanding that there be a specific policy or guidelines stating how to interpret WP:POVFORK in every circumstance in which it may apply is an unreasonable demand on policy. --RA (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (I "endorsed" above). I have returned here because of the suggestion that people commenting earlier might have developed a different view had they been able to refer to a full closing rationale. The closer's extended statement is thoughtful, careful and, for me, helpful—I had not personally bothered to investigate the relevance of the book The Politics of the British Isles nor had I probed into whether the creation of this article might have been "pointy". I still absolutely accept the AFD close and thank SpinningSpark for doing all this work. Thincat (talk) 08:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (do not delete). There was not a consensus to delete. Forking and OR issues are not well resolved by deletion. It's hard. Do not renominate for at least 6 months. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak endorse now that there is a closing statement (and a long and well-written one at that). I think no consensus was the better close as there was no consensus there. But keep may be within admin discretion. I'd have no objection to an "overturn to NC" outcome of this DRV. As a note I didn't read the whole AfD--just too long--so I admit I could be missing something, but reading the closing notes and this DRV, I don't think I am. Hobit (talk) 02:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus (Having stuck my earlier !vote) There wasn't one, and there is a significant difference (even if the outcome for the article is the same) between consensus to "keep" and "no consensus" at all. --RA (talk) 11:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus Having read the extended closing statement, I agree it was within the discretion of the closing admin to weigh the arguments according to his viewpoints. As much as I might disagree with whatever weighting he assigned to the various points put forward, his closing statement doesn't provide a clear rationale on why the Keep argument was so much stronge. I believe the correct closing should have been "no consensus". --HighKing (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Boabom – Deletion endorsed. – Jclemens (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Boabom (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) It appears that the article was deleted because the consensus among the admins involved seemed to be that the discipline is "bogus." However, I can attest that it is not bogus, as I attended a free trial class at a local studio. I don't know whether the history they attribute to their discipline is accurate, but the discipline itself is very real and merits a page. I came to Wikipedia to research the discipline to find out more about its history, any controversies, etc. but found only a deleted page. The school in Boston (Brookline, actually) is very real. I've been there and spoken with a teacher. The teacher (Ben Kelley, who has exchanged emails with me and is not pestering me or trying the hard sell or anything) said they have schools in Boston, Norway, South America, etc. He said that when Tibet was invaded, the practitioners scattered around the world. He didn't convince me of the history, to be honest. But the class was good, the teacher seemed professional, and it didn't appear to me to be a scam, a cult, or anything like that. I did wonder how they afforded the rent on that space with just running classes, so I assumed that they had a passionate angel investor or something. The waiting room smelled a bit too strongly of the handmade soap one of the students had talked them into putting out, but other than that it was a generally pleasant experience. I'm happy to research the topic and write a page. The history--which seems to me to be the only controversial component--can then be debated in real time in wonderful Wikipedia style. Thanks for listening... Links: http://bostonboabom.com/ http://www.boabom.org/ http://www.amazon.com/The-Secret-Art-Boabom-Defense-Meditation/dp/1585425214 http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=75700 (this one shows some of the controversy that could be worked out via Wikipedia... isn't that one of the huge benefits of Wikipedia?) Heykerriann (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse close - What matters is whether there is enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of Boabom for a stand-alone article. See WP:GNG. There doesn't seem to be and the AfD brought that out. The-Secret-Art-Boabom-Defense-Meditation (the art's only known documentation) and bostonboabom.com are not independent of the Boabom topic, so those don't count. bullshido.net/forums isn't a Wikipedia reliable source, so that doesn't count. But, your way ahead of the game with this article on Boabom. A few more write ups on Boabom, a Wikipedia article that limits its content to what those reliable sources say, and you might get passed AfD next time around. If there are schools in other locations, then local newspapers there may have write ups as well. "Boabom's half-dozen schools worldwide teach cycles handed down from a Chilean man named Asanaro." Is Asanaro a John Asanaro who lived in New Jersey at one time? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] I think one distinction is that they don't refer to themselves as a martial art. They're much more strongly related to yoga. So they don't compete, etc. The admins cited the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MANOTE page, but I don't think that page applies. That said, I don't feel strongly about this, but the class was really interesting, it seems to be great for kids, and I'd imagine that people who Google it will count on Wikipedia to have an entry on it, even if it is only in Boston in the US. I'm not going to fight for the article, but if it's decided it should be written, then I'm happy to write it. Is that wishy-washy enough? :) Heykerriann (talk) 03:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] We don't delete topic's per se, so the deletion is not a we can never ever have coverage of this topic, it's a deletion of the article covering a topic at this point in time. The issue here is that as said the article needs coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. All the facts need to be verifiable (so the idea that you might use Wikipedia to resolve disputes is actually missing the point quite a lot, Wikipedia isn't supposed to be the sole source of information (WP:NOR, WP:V etc.) if it isn't already published elsewhere, then it can't be here. So if you want to attempt to write an article, then you are free to do so in your own user space (Say User:Heykerriann/Boabom, if you can find the references required to sustain it en you can bring it back here to see if it can be moved to main space. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 09:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse without prejudice for future recreation if more third-party sources turn up. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse I think no other close was possible. Real does not = notable; as others have said, no prejudice against re-creation if there are good independent sources with substantial coverage. DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] endorse consensus was clearly there for close, and my further searches have not turned up other references. It seems quite certain this is real (as in, there are people doing this today), but it does not yet pass WP:N (and of course, the history of Boabom seems debateable). I think the closer correctly read the discussion. I agree with no prejudice against re-creation if other sources arise. --KarlB (talk) 03:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Comment - The the Boston Globe article does have some good info on Boabom. We could redirect the Boabom article to a target artcle and add the info from the Boston Globe article, if we could find a good target article. Boabom was in Category:Tibetan martial arts, but it's not popular enought for a place in the martial arts article and Tibetan culture doesn't discuss martial arts. There's no Tibetan martial arts, Chilean meditation, meditative movement, or defense meditation article. East Asian martial arts is a DAB and Boabom's speculative history means it wouldn't fit in History of East Asian martial arts (a redirect to History of martial arts). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Boabom – Deletion endorsed. – Jclemens (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

It appears that the article was deleted because the consensus among the admins involved seemed to be that the discipline is "bogus." However, I can attest that it is not bogus, as I attended a free trial class at a local studio. I don't know whether the history they attribute to their discipline is accurate, but the discipline itself is very real and merits a page. I came to Wikipedia to research the discipline to find out more about its history, any controversies, etc. but found only a deleted page. The school in Boston (Brookline, actually) is very real. I've been there and spoken with a teacher. The teacher (Ben Kelley, who has exchanged emails with me and is not pestering me or trying the hard sell or anything) said they have schools in Boston, Norway, South America, etc. He said that when Tibet was invaded, the practitioners scattered around the world. He didn't convince me of the history, to be honest. But the class was good, the teacher seemed professional, and it didn't appear to me to be a scam, a cult, or anything like that. I did wonder how they afforded the rent on that space with just running classes, so I assumed that they had a passionate angel investor or something. The waiting room smelled a bit too strongly of the handmade soap one of the students had talked them into putting out, but other than that it was a generally pleasant experience. I'm happy to research the topic and write a page. The history--which seems to me to be the only controversial component--can then be debated in real time in wonderful Wikipedia style. Thanks for listening...
Links:
http://bostonboabom.com/
http://www.boabom.org/
http://www.amazon.com/The-Secret-Art-Boabom-Defense-Meditation/dp/1585425214
http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=75700 (this one shows some of the controversy that could be worked out via Wikipedia... isn't that one of the huge benefits of Wikipedia?) Heykerriann (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close - What matters is whether there is enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of Boabom for a stand-alone article. See WP:GNG. There doesn't seem to be and the AfD brought that out. The-Secret-Art-Boabom-Defense-Meditation (the art's only known documentation) and bostonboabom.com are not independent of the Boabom topic, so those don't count. bullshido.net/forums isn't a Wikipedia reliable source, so that doesn't count. But, your way ahead of the game with this article on Boabom. A few more write ups on Boabom, a Wikipedia article that limits its content to what those reliable sources say, and you might get passed AfD next time around. If there are schools in other locations, then local newspapers there may have write ups as well. "Boabom's half-dozen schools worldwide teach cycles handed down from a Chilean man named Asanaro." Is Asanaro a John Asanaro who lived in New Jersey at one time? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think one distinction is that they don't refer to themselves as a martial art. They're much more strongly related to yoga. So they don't compete, etc. The admins cited the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MANOTE page, but I don't think that page applies. That said, I don't feel strongly about this, but the class was really interesting, it seems to be great for kids, and I'd imagine that people who Google it will count on Wikipedia to have an entry on it, even if it is only in Boston in the US. I'm not going to fight for the article, but if it's decided it should be written, then I'm happy to write it. Is that wishy-washy enough? :) Heykerriann (talk) 03:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't delete topic's per se, so the deletion is not a we can never ever have coverage of this topic, it's a deletion of the article covering a topic at this point in time. The issue here is that as said the article needs coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. All the facts need to be verifiable (so the idea that you might use Wikipedia to resolve disputes is actually missing the point quite a lot, Wikipedia isn't supposed to be the sole source of information (WP:NOR, WP:V etc.) if it isn't already published elsewhere, then it can't be here. So if you want to attempt to write an article, then you are free to do so in your own user space (Say User:Heykerriann/Boabom, if you can find the references required to sustain it en you can bring it back here to see if it can be moved to main space. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 09:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse without prejudice for future recreation if more third-party sources turn up. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I think no other close was possible. Real does not = notable; as others have said, no prejudice against re-creation if there are good independent sources with substantial coverage. DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
endorse consensus was clearly there for close, and my further searches have not turned up other references. It seems quite certain this is real (as in, there are people doing this today), but it does not yet pass WP:N (and of course, the history of Boabom seems debateable). I think the closer correctly read the discussion. I agree with no prejudice against re-creation if other sources arise. --KarlB (talk) 03:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The the Boston Globe article does have some good info on Boabom. We could redirect the Boabom article to a target artcle and add the info from the Boston Globe article, if we could find a good target article. Boabom was in Category:Tibetan martial arts, but it's not popular enought for a place in the martial arts article and Tibetan culture doesn't discuss martial arts. There's no Tibetan martial arts, Chilean meditation, meditative movement, or defense meditation article. East Asian martial arts is a DAB and Boabom's speculative history means it wouldn't fit in History of East Asian martial arts (a redirect to History of martial arts). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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