User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2017/4

April 19: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Request
I wish to add the Swimming at the 2016 ASEAN University Games article into my sandbox.--Hongqilim (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅, see User:Hongqilim/Swimming at the 2016 ASEAN University Games. Sorry for the delay; in the future asking at WP:REFUND will get you a much faster response. T. Canens (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

DRV closure of Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids
A few questions:
 * If a "no consensus" on an AfD results in "keep", why does a "no consensus" on a CSD (which is supposed to have a higher bar than AfD) result in deletion? I have seen other people do otherwise, for example here (The article was unanimously kept at AfD, by the way). I have no idea what is policy, so I'm asking you.
 * The book is clearly notable (absolutely nobody argued against this simple proposition, because it's so obviously true). What happens if I simply copy-paste the whole article and create it myself (I have no relation to Vipul or Caplan)? What is the difference between this case and the case where the article is kept, and someone puts it up for AfD (if they want)? It seems to me to be a useless bureaucratic step. I'm fine with doing it, if it would be simpler.
 * Recall that CSD is for unambiguous cases. This is spelled out clearly at WP:CSD. The article was deleted without any discussion at all, so DRV is the only place where one can have discussion about the deletion. It is obviously clear that there was plenty of dissent about the CSD. What does this imply? For a CSD to be kept, people have to demonstrate not only that the article is "promotional", that the topic isn't notable, the article cannot be rewritten at all to comply with NPOV, and that no reasonable person will disagree. How are all these things satisfied? Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 09:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The basic rule at DRV is that a lack of consensus means that the challenged action stands, although the closer may opt to treat it as a (re)list instead where appropriate. In most speedy cases listing the article at AFD is probably the right call, but I'm not convinced that in this case it's the correct choice. The author's identity isn't going to change, and in all likelihood it will be a contentious distraction at any AFD on the article as is, while a nonpromotional recreation by a neutral editor won't have the baggage, probably won't be sent to AFD, and may well follow our content rules (like NPOV) better. T. Canens (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, your fears about author's identity being a distraction in any AfD might not pan out, and in any case this method would lead to somewhat perverse results. For the first point, there have been many AfDs about articles created by Vipul and co. (I mentioned one above, but there are many others, like Bryan Caplan and Arnold Kling). Secondly, wouldn't it be better to have the matter out in the open, rather than this roundabout way of creating an article by a "neutral" editor? A new article (say, based on Hobit's draft) wouldn't have any revision history, so there's less transparency for the reader as well. One can put a COI notice on the talk page if required. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 15:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * An AFD after a well-attended contentious DRV tends to be well-attended, and frequently contentious. I'm envisioning a recreation using the reliable sources in the deleted content, not just copy-pasting the deleted text, which would also cause attribution problems. I don't see why in that case there'd be transparency issues. T. Canens (talk) 20:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, since you have much more experience in this matter, I will defer to your judgement. Thanks. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 20:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)