Allegations of Chinese apartheid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

• Please note that issues related to this DRV are being discussed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Allegations of apartheid. -- ChrisO 08:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Allegations of Chinese apartheid/Analysis by Leifern for a full analysis of this issue. This article and related articles have been subject to intense content disputes, replete with accusations, personal attacks, etc. It was nominated for deletion at 01:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC), and the nomination attracted at least as much controversy and discussion as the article itself.

^demon closed the nomination two days prematurely at a point where there were - by my rough count - 59 who wanted it deleted, and 45 who wanted it kept. Others counts showed slightly different results. demon justified the closure by writing he/she was most convinced by the arguments claiming that the article constituted violations of WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, etc. When questioned about this decision on his/her talk page, he/she wrote "It happens with every controversial AfD such as this, and nobody can deny it. I decided to read the debate, and close it, before any "impartial" admin could come in and pass judgment."

There was clearly no consensus one way or the other, and it also appears that the closing admin misconstrued his/her role to be that of a judge in content disputes.

I'm not even going to get into the very tired content dispute here, but it's hard to see how anyone can back this deletion. --Leifern 02:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFD says "Articles listed here are debated for up to five days", so nothing premature about it. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this nomination was not closed early... WjBscribe 14:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the AfD was opened at 01:29, 1 August 2007 by G-Dett (diff) and closed at 20:00, 6 August 2007 by ^demon (diff). I make that 5 days and 18.5 hours. -- ChrisO 18:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kids, in case it is not understood, the AfD was actually given 18 hours, 31 minutes over what policy requires. Not only was policy followed, but more time was given. I hope this puts the "AfD closed early" meme to rest. I suggest closing admin ignore all comments for overturn based on this argument. Thanks!--Cerejota 12:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Without any comment to the technical merits, the above nomination makes many assumptions of bad faith. I urge the nominator to re-write it without the insinuations or step back and ask someone else to write a DRV case for the article, a subject this controversial deserves better. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no opinion about the admin's motivations for closing, as the presented reasoning makes little sense. But I can go by what he/she wrote for the reasons. --Leifern 02:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I endorsed the deletion, as I would have done it myself had ^demon not beat me by a few minutes. If his reasoning isn't sufficient, use mine. --Hemlock Martinis 02:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I note that Leifern attempted to delete your endorsement/co-closure. An extraordinary thing to do, and completely inappropriate. -- ChrisO 07:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Chris, I don't think it is particularly appropriate for one person to publicize their own opinion at the top of a high-traffic page which is not supposed to be edited. There were many admins opposing the deletion, and evidently none of them decided to express their disapproval. The additional "endorsement" gives extra support to a controversial action, creating the illusion that demon had widespread support of respected administrators, while dissenting editors were by custom not permitted to express their own opinions. I don't blame Hemlock Martinis as it sounds like the endorsement was made in good faith (i.e., to avoid a messy DRV), but it is borderline propaganda whether intentional or not. --xDanielx^Talk 07:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't made to avoid a messy DRV, it was made because he was simultaneously closing it and edit conflicted with the actual closer. It is unusual, but hardly a problem. Viridae^Talk 08:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Hemlock's explanation. -- ChrisO 08:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand; hence my confidence in Hemlock's good faith. Thanks for clarifying. My intent was not to discredit Hemlock, but to defend Leifern's action. (Not that I endorse the action, but I think it was permissible conduct.) --xDanielx^Talk 08:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that there was THIRTY ONE MINUTES between Demon's closing and Hemlock's additional comments on page that is not supposed to be commented on. Was this really an edit conflict? Thirty one minutes seems kind of long for an action that is simultaneous. I am not accusing bad faith, but I think that Leif was justified in removing comments made (by admin or non admin) thirty one minutes after close of AFD on a page marked "do not edit". Bigglove 13:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, it is a perfectly feasible gap. Hemlock could have started closing five minutes before demon finished. The amount of time taken to make a thoughtful closure that weighed over 100 comments is well within a half-hour window and it seems readily obviously possible to have a 31 minute overlap in contributions resulting in an edit conflict. In the future, ((closing)) might be useful... — Scientizzle 16:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid such edit conflicts, when i start closing an AfD, unless it is an obvious snowball type close (pretty much al opniins the same way, no policy issues in conflict with consensus), I fist edit it to insert ((closing)) and save that edit. This notifies other closers that a close is in progress, and avoids wasted duplicated effort. it also notifies non-closers that further comments are unwanted, as the closing process has begun. I urge all AfD closers to use this handy device to avoid such problems. DES ^(talk) 21:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse; nominator doesn't explain why demon's reading of the debate is incorrect. The normal time, 5 days, does appear to have expired. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per Leifern. There was no consensus to delete, not even close. As for the above comment about "reading of the debate", I think it's very simple, there was no consensus. There was no basis for discounting any arguments of the "keep" side, so I don't see how this complies with policy. 6SJ7 04:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the accusation of premature closure is clearly inaccurate; accusing the closing admin of "taking curious pride in deleting rather than creating things" have crossed the line on personal attack, IMHO. The decision taken accurately summarised the mood and arguments of the debate, and the application of wiki policies that basically the article was in breach of WP:SYN. So who cares if the votes were "nearly tied"? AfD is not a vote. Ohconfucius 04:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks to those who created the article ;-). I'm sorry you feel sore that "your article" has been deleted, but it has given material which has allowed me to broaden and deepen the Hukou article. Ohconfucius 09:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - it's clear there's a more general issue here, but I do not find the closure unreasonable, given the ability admins have allowed to determine what consensus is in this case. --Haemo 04:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn This is one of the easier calls I've seen. A clear majority of editors put forth cogent arguments that the article should stay. demon's reasoning for closing is--literally--incomprehensible. That a later editor added an opinion (which was merely a loosely reasoned assertion, rather than an argument) after the AfD had closed is irrelevant. If AfD's are to be decided by random admins who appear to lack experience actually writing articles (correct me if I'm wrong on that), let's have that be the policy. If not, not. IronDuke 04:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This goes for both IronDuke and Leifern: If you have a problem with ^demon's position as an administrator, please take it up with him on his talk page. DRV is NOT the place to be sniping at the closing administrator for perceived bias because they choose to be involved in closing deletion debates. Viridae^Talk 05:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this is exactly the place, nobody has a problem with Demon choosing "to be involved in closing deletion debates", but people do have a problem when he uses powers he is not supposed to possess then takes it upon himself to judge which side he thinks is "better".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this is not the place. DRV has no power over user conduct beyond the deletion debate in question. If you feel there's a larger problem at work here, an RfC is the best way to handle it. --Hemlock Martinis 07:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said it does, but it should be fairly obvious that the conduct goes to why the deletion should be overturned. Nobody is attempting to use DR to get demon sanctioned.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"^demon (who takes curious pride in deleting rather than creating things on Wikipedia)" - Leifern and "If AfD's are to be decided by random admins who appear to lack experience actually writing articles" - IronDuke. Both of those people took shots at ^demoon's overall position as an administrator, which is immaterial to this deletion unless there are allegations of gross administrative misconduct. Viridae^Talk 07:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, nobody here has given any indication that they are confusing this forum with arbcom, and no one believes that sanctions will be levied upon demon simply by writing here. So I fail to see the purpose of your complaining, people can write what they want as long as they are not breaking policy.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to start questioning the validity of a ^demon's position as an admin. Full stop. This is regardless of wether any sanctions or de-sysopping are intended from the complaints or not. Including attacks on his general position as an admin that are only vaguely related to the subject in question and totally unrelated to the validity of this specific deletion is exremly bad form. As I said, the place for that kind of material is NOT in a DRV, it is on hsi talk page. Viridae^Talk 10:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I have changed the nomination wording, some of this may be moot, but I happen to think that ^demon - regardless of his/her intention - was in serious violation of policy and practice in closing the AFD. I tend to avoid lodging formal complaints about individual editors, but I don't think this kind of bad behavior should go unnoticed. I can't even imagine the outcry if another admin had reached the conclusion that the consensus favored keeping the article. --Leifern 11:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming you mean "deleting" the article. IN which case, another admin DID reach the same conclusion, totally independantly of ^demon, at the same time. I know you are aware of that because you removed their comments. Viridae^Talk 12:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning demon’s reasoning is perfectly valid—indeed virtually essential—to anyone who wants to !vote overturn here. I am not arguing for sanctions, but I am free to criticize admins when and where appropriate. What’s that you say, Viridae? Take it to his talk page? Let me quote from it: “This issue can be discussed places other than my talk. I'm not commenting on it anymore, so posting here is useless. ^demon”. So here I am discussing it, per his request. If you want to criticize my criticism, Viridae (which I find a bit counterproductive, honestly) maybe you could do so in a substantive manner, i.e., address my actual points. IronDuke 15:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with IronDuke; demon's background strongly suggests that he is an avid deletionist, and I don't think that is "totally unrelated" when it comes to closing a highly controvertial AfD against (lack of) consensus. There's nothing condemnable about being a deletionist (I myself readily admit to taking the opposite stance), but I and others feel that he's pushed his own deletion-friendly policy interpretations too far over the community's will. Different admins came to different conclusions; I don't see what's inappropriate about assessing their conflicting reasoning. --xDanielx^Talk 17:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning ^demon's reasoning is one thing. A number of comments, not to mention the nom itself, have attacked his motives or qualifications instead. An ad hominem focus on the closing admin is rarely successful at DRV. MastCell ^Talk 18:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a number of the Endorsers here are launching attacks on anyone who questions the reasoning skills of an admin, and also on people who merely want the AfD overturned because they thought it was a good article, which, if both are right to do so, means we can leave off having DRV's altogether, as there could never be a reason to overturn a close. IronDuke 03:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(reduce indent) Noone is launching attacks on the people questioning ^demon. Everyone is simply saying that if you have a problem with ^demon's overall position as an admin the place to address that is on his talk page, not in a DRV. The reasoning for the deletion to be overturned must be able to stand on its own, regardless of wether you believe the admin has an overall problem or not. Bad admins can still make good decisions, so "overturn because such and such potentially makes bad calls because of his stance on the subject of deletionism" is an invalid reason for a deletion review. A real reason is "Overturn because I do not believe that consensus supported ^demon's decision to delete this article" where the specific case is argued, rather than attacking the admin's ability too perform his abilities - which (as I have said more than a few times in this debate) is a subject for the admin in question's talk page NOT a DRV. Viridae^Talk 05:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Viridae, I’m assuming you have not read this entire thread. Again, demon stated ““This issue can be discussed places other than my talk. I'm not commenting on it anymore, so posting here is useless. ^demon”.

I feel that this close was egregious enough that other editors who come to this page (and not demon’s utterly unresponsive talk page, which will in any case be scrubbed clean of this in a few days) can understand that demon may not be the best person to close debates on complex topics. I’m fine with it if people want to disagree, but I have very right to make the point. (Also, I can posit that there are certain areas demon should keep away from without alleging “gross conduct”, whatever that might mean.) I also feel that editors who support overturning the deletion are being attacked, in an uncivil and counterproductive manner. Don’t tell people “You can’t say that!” when editors clearly can (and should) be criticizing the closing admin if they disagree with him. IronDuke 00:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse That was a good thoughtful close of a tough afd. ^demon used his administrative discretion to determine the consensus on the issues of policy rather than counting the votes. Viridae^Talk 06:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Close was explicitly reasoned, and unlike the American apartheid article, there is no credible claim of a conflict of interest. Cool Hand Luke 07:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, I really don't have any problem with the vast majority of administrators, but this situation is just one more example of an admin that has either forgotten or just never knew that they are not supposed to have any more power that any other run-of-the-mill wikipedia editor, they just possess a couple more tools to help wikipedia maintain order. Demon seems to believe that he is supposed to be some kind of judge.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Viridae. I closed the AfD for Allegations of American apartheid on virtually identical grounds, and I agree with Viridae's comments above. Admins are not robots; we're supposed to close AfDs on the basis of policy arguments, not headcounts, and policy trumps consensus. I should also note that Hemlock Martinis effectively co-closed the AfD with the same reasoning (he and ^demon closed simultaneously and got into an edit conflict in doing so). This accidental but fortuitous circumstance makes it clear that ^demon's decision wasn't an arbitrary personal choice but a policy-based decision which two admins simultaneously and independently reached. As for Moshe's comment: yes, admins are "some kind of judge" - judges of policy. That's why we close AfDs. -- ChrisO 07:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this "policy" you are so fond of quoting states just what I wrote, administrators do not have any more power than other wikipedia editors. Maybe if you understood that you would stop making inappropriate "judgements" which you have no power to make. In fact this whole situation can be thrown in with many of your own recent actions to show exactly why admins should not be "judges".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please go and read Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus. I'd like to draw your attention to this line in particular (emphasis added): "Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether any article violates these policies, and where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching these three policies, these policies must be respected above other opinions.". ^demon and Hemlock (and myself, in that earlier AfD) have quite properly followed this rule. -- ChrisO 07:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I might also add that I think the hostility being shown by Leifern, IronDuke and Moshe is inappropriate and unhelpful. Like it or not, the community has delegated responsibility to admins to close difficult AfDs. By all means disagree with our decisions and tell us if you think we get things wrong, but please don't cast aspersions on our integrity. -- ChrisO 08:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO, since you abused admin powers in a recent AFD, you would be the last person to teach others about "integrity". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Care to back up those accusations with some evidence? I am assuming you are talking about the american version of the apartheid articles, in which case I see no great outcry and no deletion review overturning his decision. Viridae^Talk 08:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact there it was not overturned cannot be considered proof that ChrisO did nothing wrong as any editor with the least amount of experience well knows. Also Chris, your hostility permeates your dialogue at least just as much as the users (besides me, I probably do sound pretty angry) who you have just criticized, so you really are not one to point fingers.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no great outcry and no DRV about that article - if you believe his close was wrong, bring it here or hold your tongue. And please stop accusing him of being hostile - I see nothing hostile in anything he has said, in fact he has been quite coivil given you are questioning the validity of his opinion - an opinion any qikipediais encouraged to express if they wish. Viridae^Talk 10:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Edit: Found the DRV in which the community upheald the deletion despite the percieved COI. Viridae^Talk 11:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, I am not casting aspersions on demon's integrity, merely his reasoning (which I see no real evidence of). I most emphatically do cast aspersions on your actions, however. I believe what you could be desysopped for using admin powers in areas where you are active as an editor. IronDuke 16:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure, the title of the article itself was not NPOV. I find no fault with the closing admin's reasoning. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per Leifern, 6SJ7, IronDuke, Moshe. The process is seriously broken if such creative accounting is allowed. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - A consensus doesn't have to be perfect, but this is far too rough in my opinion. I counted 45/46 keeps and 52 deletes, not including merges. Demon attempted to justify the decision as policy-based. My problem with his closure is that demon's own interpretation of policy should not be given a trump card over 40-50 dissenting interpretations with similar merit. To say the least, deleting the article on the grounds of WP:N and/or WP:NOR utilizes a highly contentious interpretation and application of policy. WP:VOTE aside, I think demon's actions cross the line of permissible administrator intervention. --xDanielx^Talk 08:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong endorse deletion, well-reasoned closure of a difficult to interpret AFD. Sufficient time had passed, and especially note ChrisO's citation of Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus. As far as I can tell, those arguing to overturn are spending more time attacking closing admins in AFDs like these because they didn't get their way than looking for an actual policy/guideline-based reason for overturning. Needless to say, the article was an originally researched synthesis, and very few keep arguments actually addressed that issue. --Coredesat 08:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coredesat, do you really think WP:SYN has an uncontentious application to the article in question? Frankly, I think the ambiguity of the policy makes it near-useless in its present form. If I make a list of Bridges Longer than X Feet based on a series of reports on the length of individual bridges, does that constitute unacceptable synthesis of information? What about collecting a bunch of quotes comparing certain events to apartheid, and calling them "allegations of Chinese apartheid"? My own interpretation is (in a very small nutshell) that no original research is very distinct from no original thought, and original analysis is acceptable (and absolutely necessary) if it is not a factually contentious issue. I don't say that this interpretation is necessarily the correct one (as I think the heavy ambiguity prevents there from being a correct interpretation), but can we at least agree that the policy-based reasons for deletion were contentious? --xDanielx^Talk 09:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I would have closed it as delete, as well. The article was a synthesis, advancing a certain position, and this claim was not satisfactorily refuted, once, within the entire deletion discussion. Saying "no it's not!" doesn't really cut it outside of the playground. Neil ╦ 08:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The AfD closed with an unusually detailed comment. AfD is not a vote, if consensus is to allow violation of WP:SYN then the closer should disregard that consensus and enforce policy. Far too often that doesn't happen, fortunately this AfD was an exception to that. MartinDK 09:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, reasonable close, and any DRV that starts with personal attacks against the closer obviously doesn't have much of an argument. >Radiant< 09:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Considering the arguments, and not merely the raw number of comments, this seems to be a quite reasonable close as noted by Neil, MartinDK, &c. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn good-faith but erroneous closure. WP:DGFA#Deciding whether to delete includes four criteria, of which three are questionable in this case. Firstly, 'Whether consensus has been achieved by determining a "rough consensus"'. As 6SJ7 and xDanielX have noted, there is little evidence of consensus to delete. Secondly, 'Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants.' Yet the judgment and feelings of numerous participants were completely overlooked. Thirdly, 'When in doubt, don't delete.' There was doubt, as evidenced by the lengthy debates over the interpretation of policy that was eventually used to close. Pages should obviously be deleted on grounds of policy when there is no serious dispute about the application of that policy, but was this such a situation? I'm not convinced. Jakew 11:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• From what I can tell, all those who endorse the closure do so because they agree with one interpretation of the article. The implication of this can only be that we do away with ADF altogether and simply find an admin who will listen to the arguments and accusations and make a ruling. What's the point of collecting views if a clearly controversial issue can be characterized as a no-brainer by the first admin who jumps in to end the discussion? (And the second one who "endorses" it on the page after it's been closed?) Leifern
• Endorse. This is about as frivolous a call for review as can be imagined. The closing admin waited the appropriate time, closely read the debate, carefully measured opinions and passions against the weight of policy, and made a judicious call, dotting every i and crossing every t. His closure was then immediately endorsed by another admin who was trying to do exactly the same thing and ran into an edit conflict with him. DRVs are not supposed to be forums for a second chance at the dice with the rhetorical stakes doubled. Move on, folks.--G-Dett 12:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Closure as the same ol' gang is trying to get their same ol' POV way yet again. The article was a synthesized WP:OR pile of bunk, a point that the keepers were unable to satisfactorily counter-argue against, instead preferring the strawman WP:ALLORNOTHING responses. The strength of argument clearly lay with the delete votes. Tarc 13:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn It is clear that there was absolutely no consensus before closing. If the admin who closed is one who identifies himself/herself as someone who is generally in favor of deletion of things on Wikipedia, as noted above, then probably this rather complex case wasn't the best for him/her to put his/her stamp on. We need a more thoughtful approach to this AFD. The article should be restored and given more of a chance. Bigglove 13:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article should be restored and given more of a chance? For what? Admin-shopping for a more inclusionist sysop? — Scientizzle 16:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's plenty of room for selecting an admin who is less radically deletionist without tapping into the inclusionist admin base. It would be ludicrous to argue that demon is neutral on the issue, considering his track record and evident personal aspirations. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with being deletionist, but there is something wrong with pushing a very deletionist-friendly policy interpretation over the equally valid interpretations of 45/46 inclusionists and moderates. "Policy-based decisions" should not be used when 45/46 editors share a dissenting opinion of the very same policies. --xDanielx^Talk 17:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmmm...it's also ludicrous to ignore that Hemlock Martinis (talk · contribs), the (for all practical purposes) co-closer of the AfD, is a self-proclaimed "inclusionist". DRV isn't for admin-shopping. — Scientizzle 18:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure, I am too, though like Hemlock I don't dedicate my user page to showcasing how many items I've saved/deleted. I didn't say there was something wrong with being a deletionist -- actually I very explicitly stated the opposite. Please don't bite the straw men - they won't put up much of a fight. --xDanielx^Talk 19:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Haha, I had forgotten about that. It's not even up-to-date. I'll delete it. --Hemlock Martinis 19:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • [EC]As an expert on straw men, you do realize that I never said that you said "there was something wrong with being a deletionist"? And my point, again, is that a deletionist admin and an inclusionist admin came to a simultaneous agreement on a proper closure, effectively answering any argument that ^demon's oversize delete button isn't the actual issue (and, in fact, is another straw man). — Scientizzle 19:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't know there were experts on straw men. Are you sure you're not thinking of Strawson? :) If you're going to kick out of every heavily implicit claim you made, then fine -- I never said that you said that I thought that there was something wrong with being a deletionist. I'm not sure where you're geting the idea of "another straw man" from, but I can't answer an argument that hasn't been made, so I might as well not try. --xDanielx^Talk 20:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - per general principle: all "allegations of" articles are crap. Also, good closure in this particular case. ^demon used his brain. Moreschi ^Talk 13:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - You're only ever doing something right on Wikipedia when half a dozen people make more noise than a defective set of bagpipes. What do I see above, that's right, more noise than a defective set of bagpipes, and comically, people trying to rewrite the role of an administrator on Wikipedia to suit their own agendas. Funny, but tragic. Nick 13:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/Question The closure was clearly that WP:NOR was violated by being a synthesis to make a point. To get that overturned at deletion review, clear and convincing evidence that that statement is false is needed. I look at the nomination, and no such claim is made. I also was looking at the AFD as an admin and considering closing at the very time that ^demon closed it. I had decided to wait until yesterday evening when I would have time to read the discussion one more time to see if there was any real evidence that secondary sources had discussed allegations of apartheid in China (that had been made elsewhere), as opposed merely somebody finding various places where activists had used the word "apartheid". Unless someone can point out a source that was 1) actually used in the article, 2) mentioned in the AFD, or 3) is being raised here and now for the first time and that is a reliable secondary source describing the allegations, there really is no choice other than endorsing the deletion. So, is there such a source? GRBerry 13:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per request from deleted page:
    • A number of authors have use the words "apartheid" or "apartheid-like" in descriptions of various practices in the People's Republic of China. (REF1) The practices so described include China's hukou system of residency permits,(ref name=Macleod)(ref name=Loong) (ref name=Peter) and the treatment of Tibetans (ref name=Dalai), foreigners, and ethnic and religious minorities. (ref name=Chan) (ref name=Snow) (ref name=Elliot)
      • REF1:Solinger and Wang (China: reforms of the household registration system (hukou)", February 2005) comment that 'Some have compared it to the apartheid pass system in South Africa (Alexander and Chan, Anita 1 July 2004; HRIC 6 Nov. 2002, 4; Hou 4 Mar. 2002) because it restricts the movement of rural ThukouT holders by requiring them to obtain temporary permits to reside in cities[4] (Alexander and Chan, Anita 1 July 2004; Anh Sept. 2003, 29-30).' Alexander and Chan remark that their 2004 paper ("Does China have an apartheid pass system?") was 'inspired by Anita Chan’s contention (2001: 9) that "[China’s] permit system controls [migrant workers] in a similar way to the passbook system under apartheid." More recently, Gillian Hart (2002: 204) proposed that "[a] further constraint on labor organizing [in China] was a system akin to [apartheid] influx control."
  • If you need the urls/sources for the named ref's, please let me know. -- Avi 14:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I requested the above (thank you, Avi) because these two secondary sources (Solinger & Wang and Alexander & Chan) unquestionably comment on allegations (comparisons/contentions/etc) made by others. Indeed, Alexander and Chan tell us that these allegations were the inspiration for their entire paper, in which they explored the 'insights' in more depth. Jakew 14:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like the urls (if online) for further review also, thanks. GRBerry 03:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here are links to: Alexander and Chan and Solinger and Wang. The article may have been guilty of using a broader scope than these secondary sources, but they demonstrate that the hukou section at least was not original synthesis. Jakew 10:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem is that nobody agreed on what the article was even about, but every conception was deeply flawed. If the article had only been on Hukou as apartheid, the problem wouldn't have been WP:SYNTH but most specifically WP:NPOV#POV_forks ("The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article.") By combining that with the Tibet issue and making it an article on "Allegations of Chinese Apartheid," the problem became WP:SYNTH. This is why I think Demon got it right when he mentioned both NOR and NPOV as the "non-negotiable" policies; you can frame the article around one of these policies, but not around both. Mackan79 13:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, I've had time to review these. The key, most important thing to note, is that the Chan in Alexander & Chan is the same Anita Chan who supposedly inspired the paper. This clearly demotes this from a secondary source on allegations to a primary source. I also reviewed the paper, and see that it was being used in a very selective and biased way. Only quotes promoting similarity were used, not the differentiations the authors put in.
        • The sentence quoted from Solinger & Wang is the only sentence in the paper that uses or discusses apartheid. In context, it also appears to be a minority opinion on the subject. One sentence in one secondary source is not enough to support an article. GRBerry 00:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn -- closed a day early. The full week would not have run out until August 8, as it was posted Aug 1.If we are allowing eary closings, this was (accidentally) closed YESTERDAY as no consensus, and that was self-reverted to allow the the full time to elapse. -- Avi 13:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where does the "week" bit come from? AFDs run for 5 days. GRBerry 13:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Close, as others have pointed out above the debate was not closed early. It was closed with a clear reasoning by the deleting administrator. AFD is not a numerical count and the closing administrator clearly weighed the arguments. There is no process reason to contest the AFD closure and really most of the arguments I'm seeing to overturn don't make a compelling argument of procedural error in the closing other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Beyond that, GRBerry is on the money with his assessment of the original AFD (which I was reviewing before/during it's close). Nobody provided any reasonable secondary sourcing to contest the claim that the article was synthesized original research (and a neologism) at that discussion.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closing Quality interpretation of the debate. AfD is not a vote, and the value of one' arguments and the state of policy will effect the weight your opinion is given. No reason to overturn this. The same goes for DRV, not a vote. For example if you asked for an overturn on the basis that the AfD was closed early, yet it was closed on time, that !vote will not be given as much weight as someone who is factually correct. Or if you quote vote counts, your !vote is going to get less weight that arguments based on policy and reasoning. Until(1 == 2) 14:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closing. Valid and perceptive analysis of the consensus, which gave due weight not only to the number of people expressing each opinion but to the weight of those opinions. In particular it doesn't look like the WP:SYNTH and WP:OR concerns were properly addressed by those who wished the article be kept. Many arguing to overturn are doing so on the basis of pure numbers - AfD is expressly not a vote. Seems a perfectly valid close to me and the fact that some people dislike the result is no reason to overturn. WjBscribe 14:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. The position of the closing administrator on these contentious debates is not an easy one, as any decision is likely to be questioned and often shows up here on DRV. I see no technical issues with the closure - that it was done a little early is not especially bothersome, and the closer interpreted the debate reasonably. That some people feel the need to attack the closer's character for the action is unfortunate but, perhaps even more unfortunately, not unexpected in a case like this. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 14:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It was not closed early. Until(1 == 2) 15:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure. Valid decision, with full rationale given. AFD is not a vote, and "I don't like that ^demon is an admin" is not criteria to overturn his decisions.-Wafulz 14:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse my closure. The only regrets I have in my closure was that I do not feel I was verbose enough in it. I stand 100% behind my closure, and I believe it was fully within process. I knew if I closed as keep, the deletion voters would complain. I knew if I closed as no consensus, both sides would complain, and I knew if I closed as delete, the keep voters would complain. This is inevitable part of closing any controversial AfD. It's part of the territory, and closing such a contentious thing requires the closer to be prepared that some people may not agree with their closure. The fact that Hemlock Martinis arrived at the same decision and actually edit conflicted in doing so further assures my confidence in my closure. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure and stop the insanity. Stop the attacks on ^demon, stop the knee-jerk bad-faith assumptions, stop taking his comments out of context, stop claiming it was closed prematurely, and stop rewriting the role of admins in AfD closure (and that's just in the DRV nom!) Closed reasonably, rationale explained, inevitable attacks fielded by the closing admin on his talk page. The information's not gone; it can be merged into other, more appropriate, articles should anyone care to do so. If you want a "systemic solution", this isn't the venue. If you want ^demon desysopped, this isn't the venue. End of story. MastCell ^Talk 15:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd like to second, third, fourth and nth this comment. The demonisation of ^demon (is that a tautology?) is totally unwarranted, and personally I think it's deplorable. This sort of rhetoric is unpleasant and totally unproductive; the editors responsible for it should be ashamed of themselves. They should remember that personal attacks harm the instigators far more than they harm their targets. Please stop. -- ChrisO 18:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where is there demonization of ^demon? In my initial submission I made the editorial comment that he seemed to take curious pride in deleting rather than creating things on Wikipedia, and if you take a look at his user page, you'll see that it consists of one thing, namely the number of deletions he's made at Wikipedia. I don't see that as demonization, though I'll agree I could have spared myself the editorial comment, as it was irrelevant to the issue. --Leifern 00:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the closure of this full-length AfD discussion that was edit-conflict closed by two separate admins that came to the same conclusions using reasonable claims addressing the arguments proffered for & against the article. Nose counting is not how it works. — Scientizzle 16:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure The fact that another admin, Hemlock Martinis, tried to close the AFD at the exact same time and indicated that he too would have closed it as a "delete" reinforces that this was the right decision. Lothar of the Hill People 16:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn: This was an excellent insightful interesting and most of all, an important article. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any real reason other than ILIKEIT? Moreschi ^Talk 17:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:IGNORE trumps unofficial rants essays. --xDanielx^Talk 18:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • What? Are you seriously trying to invoke WP:IGNORE now? Has it come to this? MartinDK 18:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:IGNORE does not just say "ignore all rules"; it tells us to ignore rules where they would work contrary to common sense, etc. (I personally liked the older revision). If Matt feels that certain points which weren't policy-based were over-looked in the closure of the AfD, and Matt feels that the closure gave too much weight to controvertial interpretations or applications of policies, or to the policies themselves, that's an acceptable DRV argument. There's no rule against using common sense. --xDanielx^Talk 18:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Surely Matt can speak, and cite policies, for himself? MastCell ^Talk 21:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Matt, deletion review is not articles for deletion. Please see the notes at WP:DRV#Purpose, specifically: "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome but instead if you think the debate itself was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate." (emphasis as in the original.) If you have a policy-based objection to the closure please post it, but I'm afraid an "I like the article" argument isn't going to carry any weight. -- ChrisO 18:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, where or what exactly is the synth? For that matter is Media coverage of the Virginia Tech massacre a WP:SYN violation too? Where's the SYN in this:

China's hukou system of residency permits, introduced in the 1950s, has effectively discriminated against China's 800 million rural peasants for decades, and has been described as "China's apartheid".[9][2][10][11][12]

There are 5 references mentioning the phrase "China's aparthied" and this is just something near the top of the article. I just did a cursory glance at the AfD, but no one pointed out what exactly the synthesis was. In SYN, an editor wants to advance a certain position. What position is being advanced other than what is obvious? Also to prove that this is a SYN, you have to give some alternative synthesis. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That'd go perfectly in hukou, and I saw nothing wrong with that particular section in terms of sourcing and such. Unfortunately, the rest of the article was too synthesized, as it was just citing phrases as if someone had typed "china+apartheid" into Google and slapped on the article whatever came out of the search. The context in which many of the non-hukou sources are using it is as if it was some sort of slogan. So yeah, one of the sections was fine, but you can't construct an article off of one section. --Hemlock Martinis 01:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was just one section which I saw. No one is able to tell me what exactly the syynth is. If you're all saying this is a SYN violation, whats the violation? What about the case of the "Treatment of Tibetans"? Where exactly is the SYN? I highlighed the word exactly because I asked for where the SYN is. People keep making allegations about the SYN, so where is it? Dont tell me "all over the article", or "rest of the article". Tell me where exactly it is. What exact position were the editors wanting to advance? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The SYN is in advancing the theory that there is a real-world "meme" concerning "allegations of Chinese apartheid", when the article had simply cobbled together every article that used both the words China and apartheid. The use of meaningful secondary sources that wrote about allegations of Chinese apartheid, rather than primary sources that compared Chinese human rights violations to apartheid, would have indicated the existence of such a meme. Their absence indicates SYN. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 02:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that editors have to prove that there is a "real-world meme" for an article to be notable? --Leifern 00:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article does not have to be named after a term of art for inclusion on Wikipedia. It is not necessary for someone to have written a book with an equivalent title. Your interpretation of WP:SYNTH involves some very creative "reading between the lines." Ignoring (lack of) consensus in favor of a Wikipedia policy is something that should be reserved for clear cases. This was a case in which roughly half of the editors involved interpreted the various policies one way, and the other half another way. Demon doesn't get a super-vote when it comes to interpreting policy. There was nothing unique about the policy interpretations presented in the closing statements; if anything the reasoning was incredibly sparse and inconclusive compared to more comprehensive arguments that had been introduced by both sides.

Besides, there were some very good references which established the notability of the subject. I don't know where to find them now -- does the article exist on someone's user space somewhere? Anyway, I think that issue was well discussed in the AfD, and I think the rough consensus was that the sources did a very acceptable job of tying together a motley of references into a common theme.

— xDanielx^Talk 04:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Refactoring. Daniel, I moved the article in question to User:Cerejota/chinese-apartheid. That user had made the request further down on this page.
• Now that we have a copy of the article available to view once more, let's go through this point by point. Now, I have few to no objections about the hukou section; the sources in there rival those we would expect for any quality article. The same cannot be said about the remaining three sections. The "Treatment of ethnic and religious minorities" section is one sentence, with simply one person's quote. Enough said. The "Treatment of foreigners" section looks like a bulletin board of complaints, with people throwing out the word "apartheid" as if it were some sort of universal solvent. We've got "apartheid" of African students (a subsection which mishmashes references to some vague event in the early 90s. We've got "political apartheid" coming from a Taiwanese government official and an editorial writer. And my personal favorite, we've got "health apartheid" from some writer looking for a nice catchphrase.
• But these all pale in comparison to the Tibet section. We've got a quote from the Dalai Lama himself who, despite my great respect for him, is still a primary source. Refs no. 25 and 26 are from pro-Tibetan activist groups in Britain and the United States. The large passage in the middle is from an American conservative think-tank. And the final one? Follow the bluelinks and you'll find that it's from a travel book. Simply put, someone typed "china+apartheid" into Google, clicked on the links, and dog piled on anything that had a passing mention of China and apartheid. That is not reliable sourcing. That is synthesizing sources. I stand by the decision to delete. --Hemlock Martinis 06:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except "concerns about synthesis" are not grounds for deletion. The policy clearly states that it is only when an article only could be sustained with original research there is a basis for deletion. --Leifern 00:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think those issues are for the most part content-based and correctable. We could get rid of the travel book reference, the primary source, and any others that fail the reliable source test. In fact, I think we could do that and still have plenty of solid sources left. I'm told that the economist article (I'm not sure which one) does a particularly good job painting a broad picture, though unfortunately I can't access it without doing some sneaky things.
• Let's take a close look at WP:SYN. "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C" (emphasis mine). Combining ("synthesizing") information from multiple sources does not advance a position that is independent from those positions advanced in the sources themselves. A theme (like apartheid in China) is not a position; a position is an argumentative stance on the subject, and identifying common themes among bits of information does not fit that meaning. The rest of the section is occupied mostly by the example, which vaguely and loosely supports this interpretation since "position C" is a contentious factual claim made in the body of the article. Let's not give too much weight to the catch phrase in title of the section. I think WP:SYN is one of the more unclear, ambiguous policies, but while I don't say that my interpretation is indisputable, I think it's perfectly reasonable and contains just as much merit as any other. Perhaps a strictly literal interpretation is not best -- but in this case it makes sense that we would default to consensus, or lack thereof, as the determinant of how we should interpret the policy.
• I think the important question (keeping in mind WP:IGNORE and WP:SENSE) is whether the article in question is a useful way of organizing information. Keeping in mind that the existence of such an article can do little harm (and least in terms relative to the nonexistence of the article), I think the answer is a weak yes. Apartheid is a borderline term of art; it is typically understood from high school level onward; and it is an interesting term, to say the least. It's the sort of question that a high school student might receive as an essay topic -- "While 'apartheid' has historically been understood in reference to the traditional social/political system of Africa, other countries have suffered from similar phenomena. What are some examples of apartheid in other parts of the world?"
• Of course, all this discussion is pushing "deletion review" a little far. But I genuinely think that the policies imposed to override the (lack of) consensus were applied in a contentious manner. The policy-based arguments sighted in the closing statements were the meat of the AfD controversy, and as this DRV shows, the closing statements were not conclusive, at least not enough to satisfy the large majority of us "Keep" voters. When it doubt, keep -- or rather, when the community is in doubt, keep.
• Anyway, thanks for being open to discussion, and thanks for pointing me (and anyone else) to an accessible copy of the article.
• — xDanielx^Talk 08:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Nothing wrong with the close. --Kbdank71 18:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- while I might have some small issue with the diction ^demon used, his closing statement was thought out, substantial, and well-measured. Looking through the arguments again and the old page itself, still think he did it right. David Fuchs ^(talk) 19:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This is one of the most ridiculous and corrupted procedures I have ever seen. One admin closes an AfD according to his own whim, ignoring the complete lack of consensus, and a whole bunch of his little admin friends rushes here to endorse it. I think its time for term limits, or something. 6SJ7 19:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, this group of editors sounds dangerous. But "group of editors" is too clunky of a term. Perhaps a fellowship? A fraternity? A movement? No, wait, how about...a cabal? --Hemlock Martinis 20:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the term I used was sufficient. 6SJ7 20:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This is one of the stupidest and most gratuitous comments I've seen on DRV for a while. I suppose we should be should be grateful to 6SJ7 for making it clear that his argument is really about partisan politics, not Wikipedia policy. Fortunately, conscientious admins don't prostitute policy for political reasons. -- ChrisO 20:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, one of the ringleaders speaks. 6SJ7 20:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Have you quite finished with the personal attacks yet? No? Well, I recommend that you do, because frankly it just looks silly. Moreschi ^Talk 20:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please continue, all of this piling-on just proves my point. 6SJ7 03:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have a point to prove. Per WP:CABAL; "It's much more productive to refute the arguments of the majority than implying they are wrong because it is the majority, or implying you are being repressed because it doesn't agree with you." Now please, stop embarrassing yourself. Tarc 04:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"They call them 'administrators'. A damaging faction organizing attacks on secret sites. They often use the term "WP:CABAL", a perversion of the word cabal. Admins get "epic CABALs" when they secretly delete articles which were deleted for good reasons. David Fuchs ^(talk) 04:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you have all proved his point perfectly. Kamryn · Talk 04:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I r in teh cabal. phear me. Viridae^Talk 02:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOLadmins now? Dear God, what have we unleashed? -- ChrisO 08:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the best way to convince someone that admins are nice people is to put words in their mouth and then take the piss out of them based on those words. WAY TO GO :) Kamryn · Talk 08:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are nice people, but we reserve the right to mock people who make fools of themselves. :-) -- ChrisO 08:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it is only a pity that it is the admins making fools of themselves here. Kamryn · Talk 08:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - Demon used his head and made from what I can tell the most appropriate decision. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - I missed the AfD but the article was worse than even a POV fork; it was total OR. Also, some of the ones who were voting keep on the afd, would probably have done themselves a favour if they didnt keep harping on imagined breaches of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and other such inanities when the real topic of discussion was WP:NOR. Sarvagnya
• Endorse deletion — I recommended deletion at the AfD because I believe the article was WP:SYNTH. As others have mentioned, many of the article's defenders didn't seem concerned with Allegations of synthesis of allegations of Chinese apartheid, but instead focused on WP:RS, WP:ALLORNOTHING, and WP:OTHERSTUFF. At the same time, many of the article's opponents focused on WP:POINT. I appreciate that ^demon and Hemlock Martinis cut the Gordian knot and made an unpopular decision based on relevant policy instead of taking a head count. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 00:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Not one, but TWO thoughtful closing statements (the first time I've seen something good come an edit conflict) that sum up the issues, problems, and solutions quite nicely. And, frankly, the assortment of claims offered up in this DRV started off as, to be charitable, grasping at straws, but have devolved rapidly and seem to be getting worse and worse. --Calton | Talk 02:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - Clearly the community consensus was delete/merge and both closing admins deserve barnstars for having the bravery to take on such a long and tedious task and come up with such a hard decision in face of a controversial article. I voted "keep", and I do think the article should have been at least merged into parent, so I do request an admin place the contents in User:Cerejota/chinese-apartheid so I can put it in Allegations of Apartheid. Thanks!--Cerejota 04:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As per your request, I have moved the article into the page you linked. --Hemlock Martinis 06:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks!--Cerejota 12:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Overturn, you can call it a lot of things but it wasn't a consensus. I suggest that people need to look up what 'consensus' means. Wikipedia really has bastardised the concept. Kamryn · Talk 05:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, no actual consensus, but see below. Kamryn · Talk 07:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Please see Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus (emphasis added): "Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether any article violates these policies, and where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching these three policies, these policies must be respected above other opinions.". -- ChrisO 07:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it were that simple ChrisO, why even go through AFD? Why can't we just allow editors to submit articles they find objectionable to a panel of admins, and then the first one that comes along can user his/her judgment and delete it. There has to be some point to allowing the community to weigh in. And you're acting as if there is only one possible interpretation of this issue, which is demonstrably not true. Unless you're willing to state for the record that two uninvolved admins have a fundamentally better understanding of policy than anyone who disagrees with you, the argument makes no sense. --Leifern 00:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Mmm but there was no consensus that those policies were actually violated. Kamryn · Talk 07:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The guidelines leave it up to the closing admin ("A closing admin must determine whether any article violates these policies"). --Hemlock Martinis 07:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm really? That seems strange. I'll remove my comment then. Kamryn · Talk 07:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Not really - the idea is that admins are supposed to be able to make an independent evaluation of the arguments. -- ChrisO 08:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems we've been lied to then, I was under the impression that admins were supposed to see if there's a consensus. Kamryn · Talk 08:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The correct place to clarify or alter policy is the talk page of the policy not AfD. Consensus can never overrule policy and the closer is supposed to keep this in mind every time he closes an AfD. Consensus in itself is not enough - you need to demonstrate why you believe that WP:SYN does not apply. This is why AfD is not a vote - it's the quality of the arguments being made that matters - not the quantity of identical arguments. MartinDK 08:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not interested in changing policy. I don't much care about policy. Kamryn · Talk 08:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In terms of whether the policy was disputed, you might try a ctrl f search for "synth" through the afd. The issue was actually raised a number of times with no response. I'd credit both Demon and Hemlock Martinis with recognizing this as the key problem. Mackan79 14:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as per Christopher Parham. Nominator's comment on ^demon doesn't make the closure any less justified. -- Feathered serpent 06:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Official Cabal endorse, AfD is not a vote, and this promised to be a tough one. While there was bound to be disagreement no matter what the close was, it's clear that ^demon read the unbolded words and didn't just tally up the bolded ones. I don't believe the close was an abuse of discretion or an unreasonable interpretation of the debate. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• weak overturn Avi's comments above give secondary sources, so the OR matter is more or less handled. If there is still OR that should be removed, not deleted. If we only have these secondary sources it might make more sense to merge the content with the main Hukou article. However, the closing rationale that it was all OR is clearly incorrect. JoshuaZ 14:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe Demon addressed that, in saying that any of the valuable material should go in Hukou. Of course one could have removed the original synthesis, renamed the article to the more specific topic, and then merged it with the more appropriate article; under the circumstances, I think deletion while offering to reproduce the material on request also made more sense. Mackan79 15:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn This AfD was many things, but not consensus. The conventions which keep WP running smoothly should be embraced specifically on such controversial topics, not ignored. Tewfik^Talk 20:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This is one of those few cases where no specific outcome would have "kept WP running smoothly", so an intelligent and justified close by an experienced, sensible and humble administrator is the best option, even if it sadly upsets a few users. Nick 02:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong endorse; those on the "losing" side of controversial AFDs need to stop trying to use DRV as a second dry run of the same debate. (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong insanity; how can you people possibly think that it is helpful to close controversial AfDs 3 days early? Controversy means that there needs to be more discussion, not less. -Amarkov moo! 00:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Y'know what they say, if you repeat a lie often enough, sooner or later someone is going to believe it. In this case though, I would hope people would be sensible enough to note that the AfD opened by G-Dett at 21:29, 31 July 2007, and was closed by ^demon at 15:00, 6 August 2007, which works out to a span of 5 days, 18 hours, 29 minutes. Since WP:AFD clearly states that "Articles listed here are debated for up to five days", the aforementioned and dearly hoped-for sensible people here will be able to see that any claims of early closure are without merit. Tarc 01:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, when people lie without reason, I do tend to believe them, because the alternative would be checking every statement ever made, which is a waste of my time. Y'know what they say, if someone makes an honest mistake, there will be no lack of people making sarcastic comments about their sensibility. -Amarkov moo! 01:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It is a waste of one's time to check to see if a statement like "...to close controversial AfDs 3 days early" is actually true before saying it? Yea. Some sage advice; when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you should do is stop digging. Tarc 02:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The nominator claimed that the AfD was closed early. Since the length of an AfD is easily checked, I assumed that he was right. For verifying that to be worth my time, I would have to have a reason to assume that he is either incompetent or lying, neither of which are a good thing to assume. Turns out he was wrong. You still haven't come up with a halfway reasonable explanation for why I'm not sensible. -Amarkov moo! 04:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Um, getting back to the issue...the AfD was closed on time. Does that change your opinion of the closure? --Hemlock Martinis 05:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok to drop a drama-bomb into a conversation under a mistaken premise because you're too busy to check the facts? I'm not certain I agree. The best part is that you seem to be defending your mistake instead of just retracting your statement. Also, the issue had been covered and corrected well before your edit, so it appears that you just read the initial message and responded to it instead of being part of the conversation. In situations like this, that doesn't usually help the group work towards consensus, it creates something more akin to a room full of cowboys shooting in all directions trying to see which wall ends up with more holes in it. Just a suggestion for the future. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I do think that since this claim has definitively been proven false, the people making it should strike it out to avoid misleading others in this discussion. -- ChrisO 07:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I struck it from the nom. I hope this isn't controversial, but it is clearly WP:IAR as the guy is saying something not open to debate, that has already caused confusion in at least one editors. Thanks!--Cerejota 12:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, stricken out now that I'm not busy defending myself from random accusations of stupidity. Still no opinion on whether or not to overturn. -Amarkov moo! 20:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not much of a retraction. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you want? I'm not going to say "I'm sorry, I should have checked", because I don't see why I should have. All I will do is admit that I was wrong and strike out the text, which I have. -Amarkov moo! 04:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per xDanielx. Mathmo ^Talk 03:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - --Tom 17:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Having read and evaluated diff the sources offered to avoid the WP:SYN, WP:NOR charge, I see that the deleting admins conclusion that the article was a clear WP:NOR violation is valid. One sentence in one secondary source just can't support an encyclopedia article. To be handled in accordance with WP:NPOV, the material needs to be merged to a broader topic. It is already treated in Hukou#Consequences on rural workers. GRBerry 00:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]