Kresimir Chris Kunej (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The following chronology is obvious on the deleted article’s talk page; Article gets kept at AfD. Several editors dislike this decision and they continue to attempt to get the article deleted, meanwhile breaching policies like WP:CIVIL (trying to out the creator, etc). Other individual WP:DISRUPTIVE claims are arguable, but not far-fetched. These editors hit a nerve with WP:COI. Their groupation constitutes a “COI tag consensus”. Article creator seeks help at COIN, and gets lucky- an even-handed admin gets on the mediation case (Atama states “article is in no danger of deletion in a very long time”!!). Later, this admin takes a break. Creator asks for help at COIN again a month later and editor SmartSE enters the picture. Smartse completely disregards Atama’s mediation, simply guts the article, removes sources as sees fit (some were removed that were secondary and relevant), and nominates for deletion. Article gets deleted. Several AfD participants pointed out unfair activity (even a delete voter). I do not have a problem with the admin’s closure, the delete result is obvious, but what is to stop someone from going on a rampage through the project of copying this activity and removing all individual’s works per WP:NOTDIR, gutting articles and repeatedly nominating for deletion while referring to this case and decision? I mean, nominate a very notable subject enough times, it may just get deleted. Also, Smartse deleted a contribution of another editor who voted “keep” during the AfD (PamelaBMX), thus creating a precedent to allowance of retribution (I could now go and dissect the articles created by editors who voted different than I and simply again reference this case and decision). What am I missing? Do enlighten me if I am wrong. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 18:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, proceduraly close the AfD as a disruptive bad faith nomination, revert article to what it was before Smartse’s edits, block the involved editors from ever editing it (including creator), and somehow reprimand editor Smartse.WildHorsesPulled (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Refactored to remove multiple opinions from nominator. ^Bongo_matic 01:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This request is totally inexplicably to me. A number of things seem very confused. I don't know what a "COI tag consensus" is. Looking at the third AfD it seems contentious and more problematic than average, but I don't see any reason to overturn the deletion. As a style note, the person starting a DRV is assumed to be in favor of overturning a deletion unless otherwise specified, so a second comment with the bolded "overturn" is unnecessary. Protonk (talk) 19:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - DRV isn't a venue for people who didn't get their way in a deletion discussion. Closing admin read the consensus to delete from the discussion, there's nothing else to do here. The nomination rationale was never really adequately addressed by any of the keepers anyways. Tarc (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• unfortunate endorse I agree that the consensus was to delete. Numerically it was clearly that way and arguments were leaning that way IMO. That said, even after reading the previous AfD I feel like there is something else going on here. An article that was kept in April probably shouldn't be deleted in November if nothing has changed. It feels like people might be using the article as a stand in for an RfC on an editor, and that's really not acceptable. Hobit (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hobit, please don't take the editor's claims of victimhood too seriously. When Turqoise tagged Julian Hibberd for notability, as he points out below, an article Smartse created, it already had this reference to an article in Nature (journal) that hailed him as one of "Five crop researchers who could change the world". That tag was nothing but being pointy, some tit-for-tat act of vengeance. Besides, the third AfD featured plenty of new editors with no previous history with this case. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Thanks, Horses, but I have had enough harassment and wish to move on. You did forget to mention the closure with the fantastic rationale. Regarding your “rampage” comment, I do believe a crusade of that kind would actually be more fun than constant defense of my articles, so I may embark on one. These same editors are now watching each other’s backs; I tried tagging Julian Hibberd for notability and they quickly removed that. The lesson is: create a group of your buddies, call it something cute like a cabal, have a name (hey, we can be “the porkchops”) and push our POV’s with strength in numbers.Turqoise127 21:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Please assume good faith. You're going to find a lot of people uniting against you when you accuse them of uniting against you. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I'm in Turqoise's cabal, but this article was always problematic. The closing admin acted within their discretion, the other criticisms are not for this venue.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 01:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The nominator failed to mention in summarizing the "obvious" chronology that prior to being kept at an AfD discussion, the article had been previously deleted and recreated. As to the deletion review, the close reflected the clear consensus. DRV is for addressing bad closes, not un-wished for consensuses. ^Bongo_matic 01:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The closer correctly perceived that the consensus is that this person is not notable. Abductive (reasoning) 01:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I voted weak keep both the 2nd and 3rd time, but I recall this time wondering if it should be instead "very weak keep" I'd rather have this article in than out, but I merely gave an opinion both times, and did not think the case worth extensive argument. It is very clearly on the borderline, and I think that if I had to summarize the overall consensus, it would be to delete. I think the moral is that for such decisions, often it depends on who shows up at the AfD as much as what the intrinsic merit is. Not just as weight of numbers, but as whether the people present at the various positions know how to make good. arguments. But we have to decide somehow, and I think this should conclude it until he does work that shows greater notability with better references for it. DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- this seems like a fair reading of the discussion. Reyk _YO! 05:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, closure reflected consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Deletion - Webhat (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular reason? SmartSE (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because it is the first person on here that actually read the nomination...Turqoise127 01:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that user is following me around, voting the opposite of what I opined in various AfDs--a bit of sour grapes, I think. Sorry Turqoise, Drmies (talk) 00:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse When you have editors who argued "keep" endorsing the deletion (see DGG above) that's always a pretty good sign that proper process was followed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkativerata (talk • contribs)
• Endorse As distasteful as I find the process of repeating AfDs until the desired result is reached, the consensus at this AfD was for deletion. If there are reliable and verifiable sources available to support an article, I see no reason that an appropriately created article could be created. Alansohn (talk) 22:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]