10 June 2017

Simon Stagg

Simon Stagg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Dennis Brown provided a novel analysis, in which he discounted every single !vote and agreed with the nominator that the article should be deleted. While his detailed rationale and cordial response to my raising the topic are commendable, the fact remains that the numerical !vote was 5 vs. the nominator to not delete the article. Dennis Brown erred in counting the 2 merges and redirect as opinions favoring deletion, based on his own reading of how future editing might look. Multiple sources and another merge target had been raised in the discussion, and while it pains me to call it that, the close amounts to an inappropriate supervote, and as such either a relist or a no consensus outcome would have been preferable. Discussion with closing admin Dennis Brown concludes here Jclemens (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanka Agrawal (closed)

Covfefe

Covfefe (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There were far more votes for Keep than Merge. Consensus was wildly misinterpreted. Mishigas (talk) 05:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Also, "covfefe" garners more than 22 million hits on google, conferring notability.Mishigas (talk) 05:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC) [reply]

I count over 100 votes for keep/covfefe. Admin did not even provide a rationale for closing. I think this was a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The topic has obvious notability, and many commentators in the discussion believed the result was "piling on for keep." Please read the discussion, and you will see a groundswell of support for this remarkable article. Mishigas (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing admin comments: I'll admit it was silly of me to forget to include a rationale for such a heating open debate, so I will add it here. Before I do, I will point out that the starter of this DELREV discussion is a blocked user for childish behavior on Trump related articles, seemingly, and was likely started because he didn't like my close. In any event I am impartial as to whether or not this should be an article or not. In any event I gauged all of the !votes. The deletes made solid arguments, but so did the keeps. It became apparent to me as I was following this discussion that this incident is clearly notable enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia. It was also apparent that many users feel it not notable enough to have it's own article for it. So as a middle ground to the keep and delete, I was leaning towards merging the article into a different Trump related article. Many users based on their !votes saw the same course of action as the only acceptable. I will also add that many keepers and deleters offered merging as a second choice. When I gauged the discussion before I closed, I was certain that Wikipedia needs to mention Covfefe somewhere, but not as its own article, based on arguments, so rather outright delete or keep, I felt the best course of action was to merge into a different article. I have no objections to my actions being overturned. I outright expected to get a lot of covfefe over the close. Hope this helps.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 12:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Whether or not the user who put this article up for deletion review is or is not banned is not relevant, and to bring that up makes for an Ad Hominem fallacy. Thank you for finally providing a closing argument. Samboy (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to keep. I think there was a solid enough consensus to keep. Reyk _YO! 07:07, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus (which should default to keep). There were valid arguments on all sides. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 07:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close. Per WP:NOTVOTE, !votes are not votes. Many of the keep !votes are poorly grounded, either being clear "votes" only, misrepresentation of policy or clearly ideologically motivated. (See: Keep important, groundbreaking article. Will be useful to historians that want to trace the emergence of the second dark ages and Trump's reign of terror. Crucial historical document. This is not the place to pay partisan politics and cover up for Daddy, Trumpkins.; Keep this is about as consequential as this presidency has been thus far.; Keep Article possesses world-historical importance. Symbolic of the astonishingly rapid decline in moral and intellectual standards and the decay of human civilization itself since Trump's violent seizure of power.) While many of the !votes assert notability, none demonstrate it. Considering the arguments provided in the discussion, merge is not an unreasonable closure. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 07:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This is incorrect. There are keep votes over at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Covfefe that did establish notability as per WP:GNG. Indeed, one opponent of keeping the article conceded that NYT is a great source to establish help GNG, and there are probably hundreds of sources around the world now that do that. This article passes GNG, very, very easily. That's not the issue.. Samboy (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. "Keep: Make Wikipedia great again" and other WP:ILIKEIT rationales were typical of the "keep" !votes; very few had any policy-based arguments. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 07:56, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to No Consensus (and therefore keep). Very many of the Keep votes were WP:ILIKEIT, but equally very many of the Delete votes were WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Many of the Delete voters were appalled that a respectable online encyclopedia such as Wikipedia should give coverage to ephemeral trivia such as a Trump's mistweet; but many mainstream newspaper articles have been devoted to "Covfefe", which makes it notable, and it's just snobbishness on our part to pretend that it is not a notable topic worthy of a separate article here on the English Wikipedia. BabelStone (talk) 08:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. There was substantial disagreement on the deletion discussion and nothing to definitively override the WP:GNG presumption of notability given by its massive media coverage. People have correctly noted that Trump and related memes get media attention of a quality and quantity different from other presidents, but this isn't something Wikipedia should subjectively compensate for. Attempting to do so reeks of original research. —Guanaco 08:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per User:Ryk72. Closing admin quite correctly looked at strength of argument rather than an up and down head count. One suggestion that I would have for them though is to provide a bit more of a rationale when closing tricky discussions like this one, rather than just using the default minimal text. It won't stop some people dragging the discussion through every possible drama board, but it at least shows that there was a thought process applied in deciding what to do. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Endorse: A deletion discussion is not a vote. The closing admin, cyberpower678, I am sure has taken the relative weight of arguments presented to arrive at the close to merge the article. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per WP:NOTVOTE. The closing admin correctly found that a merge was the best alternative per normal Wikipedia policy. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 10:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Between the delete and merge !votes the arguments against keeping the article were much stronger. For the record, I favored (and still do) deletion. But I concede that the merge close was reasonable given the general split (delete v merge) among those who presented very solid arguments against retention as a stand alone article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

what exactly were these "very solid arguments"? I see nothing more than Wp:IDONTLIKEIT, ad nauseam, despite the 22 million hits.

2600:1017:B418:682D:2472:7FDE:E564:52E4 (talk) 14:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Sock of Kingshowman. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Closing admin's "explanation" lacks basic logical coherence:" It became apparent to me as I was following this discussion that this incident is clearly notable." So you decided to delete? By your own lights the arguments for notability convinced you. People citing not a vote doesnt imply that the side with far fewer votes should win despite also having worse arguments. One of the most farcical excercises in democracy since Trump was "elected" with 3 million fewer votes than Clinton. Your fascism has no place here. 2600:1017:B418:682D:2472:7FDE:E564:52E4 (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2017 (UTC)— 2600:1017:B418:682D:2472:7FDE:E564:52E4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Obvious Sock of Kingshowman. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close per Ryk72's rationale. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as a reasonable compromise close. It is apparent that there is in fact no consensus on the application of WP:NOTNEWS. A "merge" allows the closer not to come down on one side, which, given the roughly even split in the vote, is fine by me. I'm sure this will be hashed out again in other deletion discussions. Srnec (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Ryk72, et al. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Most users supporting keeping the article were politically motivated and didn't make strong arguments. --XenonNSMB (talk, contribs) 18:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep. The discussion was closed with a single sentence, and did not quote any relevant Wikipedia policy. Even people who supported closing at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Covfefe conceded that the article met WP:GNG, e.g. NYT is a great source to establish help GNG, and there are probably hundreds of sources around the world now that do that. This article passes GNG, very, very easily. That's not the issue.. A lot of people opposed to keeping the article brought up WP:NOTNEWS, but that was wrong, as pointed out by another user: there is a pretty sizable WP:NOTNEWS misapplication going on here. None of the 4 points under notnews have been met here, particularly the "routine news" of #2. This is not "routine news", this is a flurry of national an international discussion of the event [...] "WP:Notnews" is a misnomer and should be retitled "NotRoutineNews". To address WP:LASTING, new articles are still using the word “Covfefe”, e.g. This USA Today article from today has “Covfefe” in its title. Samboy (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Mishigas, the initiator of this discussion, has been confirmed a sockpuppet of Kingshowman. SkyWarrior 19:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I think the merge into the Trump social networking article reflects a reasonable level of treatment for the long haul, even though I believe this tweet will ultimately prove to be a forgettable social media flap. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Ryk72's. If we only counted votes, we could have a bot close discussions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. As somebody who participated in the original AfD I am perfectly happy that the decision to merge reflects the outcome of the discussion and that the grounds on which this review was originally requested are merely the bogus ramblings of a blocked user. What stops me suggesting a speedy close to this review is that other people have suggested overturning the deletion, some of them presenting more respectable arguments than those at the top. My view remains that we should cover this in a manner that is not undue. Anybody who types "covfefe" into the search box should be taken to coverage of this kerfuffle (rather than redirected to coverage or anything else that might be confusing and unhelpful to them) but that there is no encyclopaedic subject here, distinct from Trump's use of social media in general, which can justify an article of its own. I believe that this is in line with policy and is the outcome that serves our readers the best, neither hiding the kerfuffle from them nor pretending that it is more than it is. Lets stop before somebody dubs this "covfefegate" and the English language dies of shame. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and re-open It would seem a strong consensus failed to be reached. I'd rule in favor of re-opening this discussion through another AFD nomination (and to avoid any abrupt closures to its discussion, as seems to have been the problem in with this one). I myself ultimately lean in favor of a merge, however I feel the means by which the discussion was concluded were improper. SecretName101 (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• If AfD was articles for discussion (it isn't, see WP:PEREN) it would be a slam-dunk to endorse the close: no matter how stupid or transitory the coverage, there has been a plethora of it. Merging was probably the most Solomonic thing to do in this situation, but per GNG, Keep is a policy-based outcome, and per WP:DEL "The deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should only be done when there is consensus to do so. Therefore, if there is no rough consensus, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging, or redirecting as appropriate." So, with all due respect for the closer stepping into a political morass like everything Trump-related is, Overturn to Keep and start a merge discussion outside the AfD process. Jclemens (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merging was probably the most Solomonic thing to do in this situation, but per GNG, Keep is a policy-based outcome -- ??? I'm having trouble understanding what you're arguing, but it seems like you're saying merge is not a valid outcome at AfD, or not "policy-based"? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. There was no way the AfD was ever going to end in deletion, and any editor in good standing should have gone in knowing that in the first place: Inconsequential and silly as the original tweet may have been, the only alternatives were separate article or merge into another, and therefore AfD was never a proper venue in the first place. Of the two outcomes (keep, merge) I really don't have a strong opinion, but the policy-based outcome would have been to keep the article and start a merge decision on the talk page. Jclemens (talk) 23:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be fair there was a merge discussion taking place at the same time. I only briefly glanced at it, but it seemed to be heading towards a merge outcome.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 23:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Many of the keep votes were clearly a case of WP:ILIKEIT, and while many of the delete ones could be considered WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I don't see why this deserves its own article and couldn't just be a larger section on the Donald Trump on social media page. --Snowstormer ^{(T | C)} 21:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per User:DanielRigal and User:Lankiveil. The only error was the failure to provide a rationale in the original close, and that has now been resolved. There's even an argument to speedy close this per WP:DENY given the source of this DRV. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. By and large, the delete/merge arguments were of WP:IDONTLIKEIT nature, or else the policy arguments they raised were convincingly rebutted during the AfD. Quite a few 'delete' !voters said that this was a WP:NOTNEWS case. However, as was pointed out more than once during the AfD, the covfefe episode are anything but routine. Others arguing for delete/merge said that the coverage will disappear in a few days or has disappeared already. I pointed out twice (on June 5 [1] and on June 7 [2], in response to these arguments, that substantial coverage was continuing. In fact, while this DRV is ongoing, there are numerous new examples of substantial coverage, just from the last 24 hours Sarah Huckabee Sanders' 3-year-old just tweeted a bunch of covfefe, More 'Covfefe'?: Trump Spox Lights Up Internet with Strange Emoji'ed Tweet, 'Tonight Show' Thank You Notes: James Comey, Covfefe, Covfefe 2.0? Sarah Huckabee Sanders' emoji tweet grips the internet, and many more. There were many passionate IDONTLIKEIT delete arguments saying that it was just a stupid typo unworthy of an encyclopedia article. But we are supposed to base our decisions about keeping/deleting/merging an article based on whether there is substantial sustained coverage by independent reliable sources. That's definitely the case here, and it is clear that the covfefe thing is not going to go away. Nsk92 (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse there's a WP:TROUT due for not putting the closing admin comments on the AfD page, but the consensus was judged correctly. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]