Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Colorado balloon incident

No consensus
^^ – Howard  the   Duck  04:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * eh... I think consensus is currently leaning towards deletion, though I have an obvious bias. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say "no consensus" too instead. We should begin to organize bets on AfD outcomes! :) -- Cycl o pia -  talk  09:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Count me in! As a start, I'll bet there'll be a DRV on this, especially if the admin's decision results in keeping the article. – Howard  the   Duck  18:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * w00t!!!!!!!!!! – Howard  the   Duck  17:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That proposal gives me an idea for the next April Fools' Day joke lol. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 10:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should ask to weigh in! ;) – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I just cringe at the excessive ridiculousness of the "I saw it all over the news so it must have a Wikipedia article!" mentality. Baloonboy's balloon (though one has to wonder; if Balloonboy was never in the balloon, is he still Balloonboy?) probably wasn't even out of the neighborhood yet before someone flew here in a tizzy to start this article.
 * We need to have a larger discussion about the the 24h news cycle, their willingness/eagerness to tabloidishly cover every runaway balloon and tart with cold feet, and how the bar for reliable sourcing needs to be raised from the gutter where it currently resides.  I'm really hoping for a closing admin that is willing to cut through the "but but but I sat all day and watched it on CNN!" bullshit, but I'm not hopeful. Tarc (talk) 12:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree, but the discussion is humungous and seems to be all over the lot. I favored deletion, but then switched over to "procedural close" after I saw the balloon incident lead off the Anderson Cooper broadcast on CNN yet again. My basic feeling remains deletion, but I think we have to recognize that this might be a somewhat bigger story than the fly by night incident that it appeared to be originally. We do need to have a larger discussion on when a news event does and does not warrant a Wiki article. There may already be such a guideline, but if not it needs to be formulated.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I cringe at the excessive ridiculousness of the "I just saw it all over the news so it must NOT have a Wikipedia article!" mentality. We do need more guidelines around 'breaking news' but this was never going to be only a 24hr story, some folk could see that it might turn into something and got started on the article. Well done.--Jaymax (talk) 05:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

If you guys want more bedlam, I suggest an admin add it to WP:ITN bypassing WP:ITN/C, THAT will cause simmering tempers boil over, the air will be hot enough to lift up a blimp. – Howard  the   Duck  14:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Guys, there is no consensus. It may lean towards one or the other, but that's straight majority, 50% +1. That's not consensus. Consensus is an overwhelming majority, which we don't have. So, unless we want to start counting hanging chads, I don't expect a clear-cut conclusion. Oh, and by the way, don't post your Keeps and Deletes here. Don't even bring up your Keeps and Deletes. --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 16:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you laboring under the delusion that this is a vote? Tarc (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How else can consensus be determined? Does a panel of administrators just decide that something is consensus? If you poll people for opinions, that's a vote. If the administrators will act in the intrests of that vote or go against it is something totally different. --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 17:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I know someone will say, so I'd do this myself, that AFD is not a vote... in the strict sense of the word. It's the closing admin who'll weigh down which of the comments are valid, taking in consideration if there's a high number of people titled to one side. If it doesn't, it boils down to the biases of the closing nominator, and to whatever essay/policy/guideline/whatever s/he cites to back it up. – Howard  the   Duck  17:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No it is not a vote, and I think that people should keep an open mind on this. Me, I'm a notorious waffler. I thought at first that this thing was a "big nothing" but it keeps going on and on and on. And by the way, it does belong on ITN.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If AFD is not a vote, then ITN is not uh... news, but you can try and be accused of American imperialism or some lesser offense... – Howard  the   Duck  18:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Polling people is a vote, inherently. Like I said, nobody has to use the results of the vote. They generally won't. Still, the opinions should either consensus or a lack thereof. --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 20:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I really, really hope the closing admin does the right thing and weighs the strength of the arguments brought up, boldly closing with a keep or delete. I really don't care which one at this point, I just don't want to see a no consensus cop-out. The Wordsmith Communicate 18:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I highly doubt someone's going to take the time to cut into the thick of the discussion, with so many points repeated and overstated. I've tried going through it all (I'm awarding barnstars to those who remained civil) and I can't do it. Perhaps we should set a time limit on the discussion. --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 20:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a time limit on the discussion - 7 days. If I were closing it (which as I've expressed my opinion is to delete it, I can't) then at the end of the 7 days if the editing is still as hot then I would mark it closed and then do through and determine consensus (this is allowed). Because AfD is not a vote, determining consensus is not as simple as counting votes. You have to weigh up the arguments made, ignore any invalid votes, and then see what that brings. For example, if you have 100 people saying "keep - I like it" and three people saying "delete - not verifiable" then it should be deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 20:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Without replying to anyone in particular, I'll note that the noun "vote" can refer to "a formal expression of opinion or choice, either positive or negative, made by an individual or body of individuals" or "a formal expression of preference for a candidate for office or for a proposed resolution of an issue" [source: dictionary.com].

So AfD is a vote, but not in the sense that the word "vote" is being used by those stating that it isn't a vote (as shorthand for "majority vote" or "plurality vote"). The sentiment is accurate, but the terminology is not. —David Levy 23:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's kind of what I was getting at. I certainly hope that this can be resolved at some point, hopefully soon. --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 00:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It finished as no consensus. Me and Howard The Duck want to collect our bets :D !-- Cycl o pia -  talk  10:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate a big burger. Just send it through the mail. LOL – Howard  the   Duck  11:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Post-closure discussion 1 - citing policy does not require additional arguments
The closing admin wrote: "some simply reference WP:NOTNEWS, WP:N, or other guidelines or policies without actually tying them to an argument about why this should be kept or deleted (which is required in an AfD)."

Referring to policy or a guideline in an AfD is a prima facia argument for or against, it doesn't require elaboration, particularly if someone else elaborated on it already.

Here's a trivial hypothetical example: AFD for Public School 132 bike-a-thon 2007, NY public schools:
 * nominator says "clearly non-notable local event"
 * 10 more people say "non-notable"
 * the guy who wrote it says "notable, it was in the New York Times"
 * it gets deleted, the admin closes with "deleted, not notable local event"

That said, I think you did the right thing - there was no hope of any improvement until this has been out of the news for some period of time. Anyone sending this to DRV would be being even more pendantic and WP:POINTY than I am being here. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  13:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're wrong – see WP:VAGUEWAVE. Skomorokh,  barbarian  13:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I must have missed that the last time I read that essay. This is an essay, not a guideline, and not all editors agree.  I happen to disagree with the essay in trivial cases, but in not-clear-cut cases it makes a lot of sense.  I've added a comment at Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions saying as much.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  13:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that citing policy does not require additional argument, and I don't believe the closing administrator's characterization of the discussion is correct. But I think he made the right decision.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Citing a policy or guideline can be sufficient, but not when it isn't obvious why/how a policy is being cited. In this instance, numerous users simply mentioned WP:BLP1E (which, frankly, is irrelevant) and/or WP:NOTNEWS (without explaining how it applied or attempting to justify the position that the article stemmed from "routine news coverage"). Comments can be concise (irrespective of whether a policy or guideline is being cited), but they also must be clear.

For the record, I strongly favor keeping the article (so I'm far from impartial), but I just checked every instance of "WP" on the page, and I found zero "keep" votes based on policy/guideline shortcuts cited without elaboration. (There were, of course, "keep" and "delete" comments with weak/invalid/nonexistent rationales.) —David Levy 15:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * David Levy's comment here is basically my thinking with respect to the "tying them to an argument about why this should be kept or deleted" comment. Many comments simply said WP:NOTNEWS, or the like, and to be frank that is not really an argument. For example in many of the "NOTNEWS" comments, the implied argument seemed to be "this has been in the news and that kind of thing does not belong on Wikipedia." But obviously some things in the news do belong on Wikipedia. So in order to really provide a useful comment one should explain why this particular news event falls under WP:NOTNEWS&mdash;not simply invoke a policy that could apply. Is it "routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism" and if so why? Did the person commenting Google a bit and find basically the same story written a thousand times, with no evidence of discussion of the wider "significance" of the event? If so that kind of thing would be useful in justifying a "NOTNEWS" based !vote. Similar examples in other AfDs would be someone simply saying "not notable" or "notable" without explaining how they arrived at that conclusion. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

My opinion: This is just meaningless banter. Why can't we let articles be articles without admin intervention? I'm not even going to bother reading admin rants about this, but I'd say this is not publicity, this is information. We have an article about the New York hudson river plane crash, why can't we have this one? 00:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yet another example of the fallicies of Wiki Admins.

Link to DRV
This deletion was reviewed and snow-endorsed on October 18. See Deletion review/Log/2009 October 18. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  02:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

This close is a shining example of WP:Ignore All Rules
See this edit of Wikipedia Talk:Ignore all rules.

Congratulations, when people want to ignore all rules, they'll have you as an example to follow. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  02:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)