User talk:S Marshall/Archive34

This is an archive of past discussions with User:S Marshall. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archives : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46

I was on hiatus in May and missed John Bambenek's annual trip to DRV. Never mind, someone was around to remind everyone of old times, and it was you. Well done :-) Guy (Help!) 17:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• I see you've been looking into ancient history. What brought that on? :)—S Marshall T/C 17:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Butterfly mind, I guess. I was thinking of the gentler days of yore, when vanity spamming was seen as more of a gentleman's game on both sides of the fence. Guy (Help!) 17:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• We've become chillingly efficient at dealing with it.  :\—S Marshall T/C 17:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying to think through what changes, if any, are appropriate to avoid a repeat of the recent incident at ANI (Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Non-admin_closures_at_WP:DRV_and_administrator_Cryptic.27s_block_of_me). Unfortunately, it is not yet over.

For the record, while I am quite unhappy at out how some aspects of the incident were handled, that unhappiness does not extend to your actions.

I do think the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review need improvement. I'm still mulling over exactly what recommendations, if any to make. However, it occurs to me that one way to help avoid a repeat is if you were an admin. I see that you were nominated but withdrew (with 88% support – is that a record?). You indicated that the time you concluded you did not "have the temperament for it". That was a wiki age ago — I wonder if you would reconsider? I haven't reviewed your talk page; my guess is you have been asked more than once but I thought I'd try once more.

Here's my thought process. Let's start with the caveat that, as you are well aware, I have been uninvolved in DRV. However, it occurs to me that DRV is something like the Supreme Court when it comes to content. While some might think that ArbCom is playing that role, their remit covers conduct and not content. As far as I know, when it comes to the existence of an article, DRV is the last realistic step in the process. (In theory, the foundation might have the last word but to the best of my knowledge they've never overturned a DRV decision.) For that reason, it is critical to make sure that editors closing DRV discussions are highly competent. We very imperfectly express a preference for an admin to close the discussion. By imperfect, I mean that it is a mistake to equate the holding of that bit too the appropriate level of competence. There are admin's who slip through the cracks and should not be making those types of decisions, while there are a large number of non-admin's who have the competence and temperament to make the tough call. For a variety of reasons those editors with the experience and temperament are not always admin's. The current rules imperfectly express a preference for admin's with an exception for some non-admin's to close discussions. Although I am still mulling over whether that wording could be improved, and it is highly likely to conclude that the effort to do the wordsmithing is not worth it, if you are one of the more prolific closers, then the community might be better off if you were an admin and therefore no longer have the potential of having the question raised.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Hi, Sphilbrick, and thanks for your message. I'm grateful for, and flattered by, your offer to nominate me for adminship again. At first blush, I'm not exactly overenthusiastic about the idea of walking open-eyed back into that bear pit, but I'll give the matter some thought. All the best—S Marshall T/C 17:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah, I've reviewed some recent RFAs, and I think the amount of bullshit people serve up to prospective admins is utterly beyond the pale. I'm afraid I don't volunteer.—S Marshall T/C 19:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• S Marshall is one of the set of highly respected non-admin pseudo admins, true. However, promoting the few old timers who should have been admins but never were does nothing for the real problem of a lack of new engaging editors heading toward adminship. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you, SmokeyJoe. You're saying a lot of very nice things about me lately! All the best—S Marshall T/C 11:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• For some reason I thought you had one of those "user does not want to be an admin" userboxen. Well, I can't say I don't understand the unwillingness to brave RfA. But for what little it's worth, from someone who was thrown in not altogether willingly and was then a very strange admin until I wasn't any more, I have to say the clue, sangfroid, and ability to engage with those of differing viewpoints that you're constantly showing in parts of the project that scare me badly, would IMO help tremendously at RfA and give you a pretty good shot. (I don't of course know what skeletons you may have hidden away, or what groups within the project you may have annoyed, but a good nominator would help you prepare and also have your back during the week. Also my experience was—and I've also seen this with other candidates—that wise and savvy supporters tend to appear and help out. As I recall an IP turned up at my talk page at one point and told me to shush.) There's also always that "I'm thinking vaguely of maybe running for adminship; tell me honestly what you think, on a scale of 1 to 10 with adjectives" page.) I suspect you are under-estimating how well you'd manage. But it very much isn't for everybody, even if one doesn't have an aversion to the process of getting it. However, pretty near nobody expects any one admin to be active in every single admin area. Some are pretty slothful, as I was; but admins with clue and empathy are always useful. I hope I eventually get to support you. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• Well, thank you, Yngvadottir. That's kind of you.—S Marshall T/C 17:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Noticed two difficult, fraught RfC topics closed today. Both done sensibly and thoughtfully, regardless of whether I agree with all the specifics. Both sure to cause you headaches at some point in the future, and I think you know that in both cases, so props to you for doing it anyway. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you Rhododendrites.  :) All the best—S Marshall T/C 23:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

That RfC on GG is probably one of the most detailed and analytical I've seen on this entire mess. Thanks for showing that sensible reason trumps passionate bickering any day of the week. The only nitpick I can think of for this would be not to paint everyone in either group with a wide brush with condemning terms, but that's cause I've been called every name under the sun for being a supporter of GG. I don't want anyone to have to go through that; having the Wiki article cleaned up would be a huge step in the right direction of being able to hold these kinds of conversations without everyone getting so...uppity :P Sethyre (talk) 05:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

That's a better closing than I expected to be written. It's not quite accurate to say though that, "the successful draft must lay blame, front and centre." The most disputed part of the draft was where it reported what reliable sources say about who is to blame. Rhoark (talk) 04:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

As a GamerGate partisan you will of course think that. I would say thclose is pretty much perfect. Do not, under any circumstances, be tempted to interpret it as supportive of your overall tone. Confirmation bias is a bitch, don't fall for it. Your writing style is good, but your tone was flat wrong in many important respects, and you need to take that on board. Guy (Help!) 07:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for those words of support, but I'm afraid I don't agree that it's about "tone". I can be a great deal clearer and more specific than that, and I think that in most respects the draft is superior in tone. The draft is written in simple, declarative sentences where the current version is full of convoluted phrasing (which is of course the result of the constant wrangling over every sentence), and the draft progresses from one idea to another whereas the current article keeps re-stating the same themes again and again.

  No, I think the key point here is that the current version lays greater emphasis on the fact that Quinn and Sarkeesian are the victims, and what's being perpetrated against them are hate crimes. The draft does not ignore these things, but its phrasing and structure makes them less prominent. The consensus is that the preponderance of reliable sources are accusatory, in a way that the draft is not. I would suggest that it's possible to fix the draft in such a way as to make it an improvement over the current article. All you've got to do is put the victim impact statements and the description of hate crimes at the top of the agenda. Because it's got to be a shift of emphasis, this means giving less prominence to the Gamergaters' position and de-emphasizing the portrayal of Gamergate as a discussion about reporting standards. The consensus is that Gamergate is not about reporting standards or antifeminism. It's about persecution and victimisation. It's this sense that I meant when I said it "must lay blame" ---- not necessarily blame at individuals, but blame in the sense that people are to blame for the way women in gaming have been treated over this. I hope this helps—S Marshall T/C 09:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Holy crap...Not only have you explained in great detail what the conflict over this draft is, you also clarified what you meant with the only part of the closing I was kinda iffy about. Dude I think you're single-handedly improving the standards of Wikipedians with this kinda writing. I actually disagree with the bit at the end of what GG is about - because I've also seen women in GG and get thrown even worse things because they were simply part of GG - but that would be going into a different discussion all together. My disagreement, however, does not mean you're wrong, either. It does need to shift that emphasis, and then talk about all the other things GG has done (charity donations, FTC regulations, AirPlay, all that jazz). This does not mean the harassment is less important, either, because it's still a serious thing. But I digress; this is a conversation that should be more likely held over at the article's Talk page, eh? Sethyre (talk) 02:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I'm curious about your comment, There seem to be no objections to Cunard restoring his (entirely different) draft to mainspace, although one editor is concerned that it might not survive AfD. I'm wondering if you noticed the objection I had written. I'm OK with you thinking other people had made stronger arguments to the contrary, but I don't see how you thought there were no objections at all. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oh, I'm sorry, RoySmith. I mistakenly took what you said as advice to @Cunard: to expand his draft, and I failed to appreciate that it was an actual objection. I've pinged him to attract his attention.—S Marshall T/C 18:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• RoySmith (talk · contribs) and S Marshall, I do no not plan to move Draft:MacroGeo to mainspace at this time. But I may move it in January 2017 or later if stronger reliable sources surface after it has officially launched. RoySmith's commentary at the AfD convinced me the article is unlikely to pass an AfD with the current two sources. Cunard (talk) 06:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi S Marshall,

I just had a quick look at the 2016 update Cochrane review you mentioned and I agree with you that Cochrane is an excellent source. But as far as I understand it their mention that "the quality of the evidence is low" refers to the hypothesis that ecigs help smokers give up smoking. As far as I know no reputable scientific studies claim that ecigs are as dangerous as traditional cigarettes. I understand that ecigs have not been studied for more than a few years but how long does Wikipedia need before accepting that ecigs are safer than traditional cigs? It is hardly a high hurdle and I find it very strange that anyone would think an ecig was as dangerous as cigarette smoke. I don't smoke or vape myself but personally it is just so frustrating that so many educated young people here (in Turkey where I live) smoke so much but that I cannot import ecigs as presents for them as they are confiscated by customs, whereas the ecigs on sale here are poor quality. Even if the evidence for ecigs reducing smoking is low it is still worth a try I feel.

You did not mention whether ranting was allowed on your talk page but I feel better now I have got that off my chest. Normally I attempt to edit Turkish Wikipedia as I don't like to spend much time here on English Wikipedia as it has much better info already and takes up too much time without the benefit of me practicing my second language.

Chidgk1 (talk) 18:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• Hi mate, and thanks for visiting my talk page. You're very welcome to rant here! :-) Wikipedia is rightly careful about claiming that something's safe when there are reliable sources that say it isn't. In fact the ideal goal with any smoker is to help them quit. I can tell you from personal experience that quitting is hard and I found nicotine replacement therapy helped me ---- this was before e-cigs were on sale here in the UK, so e-cigs weren't an option for me and I've never used one. But the right advice is to tell people to quit smoking, and that conventional nicotine replacement therapy is available to help them. If they don't have the necessary personal qualities to quit with conventional NRT, then taking up e-cigarettes is usually going to be better than continuing to smoke tobacco, but that's a judgment people should make in consultation with a medical professional. We don't want them googling it, getting the Wikipedia article, reading the lede and then making a snap judgment.—S Marshall T/C 18:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

{{uw-3rr}} Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

• This is not a good decision on your part, User:Doc James. Will you reconsider and self-revert?—S Marshall T/C 18:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

First you are wondering if the NIH is a reliable source on par with Public Health England and now you are taging the position of the CDC? Seriously what are you doing...

A number of your edits lately look rather pointy like your removing the dates that stats apply to as you did not get consensus to attribute a sentence.[1][2] When different major organizations come to different positions we attribute them. When they do not than we do not attribute. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

What am I doing? I'm trying to have a discussion about an undue weight issue in the article, but I'm finding that tagging is treated like vandalism. I really do think you should know better than that.

I'm not saying that CDC are wrong. What I'm saying is that one of their views receives undue emphasis in the article, and I should be allowed to say that, Doc, because any fool can see how overloaded the captions are with this one allegation.

I'm content to revert CFCF and QuackGuru; they have Arbcom sanctions in this topic area which makes it hard for them to shut me down by brute force. You're not in the same position. But a template warning? Over an attempt to put a tag on a good faith NPOV dispute? That's really quite an extreme reaction.—S Marshall T/C 19:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

You have added tags to the article 4 times today.

• Nov 6th, 17:02 [3]
• Nov 6th, 14:45 [4]
• Nov 6th 14:32 [5]
• Nov 6th 14:19 [6]

You have tagged the positions of the NIH and the CDC as "undue" three times. Per WP:MEDRS these are ideal sources for health information. And to clarify I also support including the position of PHE without tagging as it is also an ideal source for health information. Discussing your concerns does not require tagging.

With respect to attributing we should attribute the positions of PHE and the NIDA as they come to different conclusions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

• What that tells me is that you haven't understood my position or my edits at all, Doc. What I need from you now please is to read, comprehend, think, and then respond.

  The {{undue-inline}} tag does not dispute what the source is saying. I fully accept that these sources do say these things. What the {{undue-inline}} tag is to express a concern that that source is receiving emphasis that's not in proportion to its importance. In other words. I'm not tagging the positions of the NIH and CDC as "undue". I'm tagging our representation of these positions. Does this make sense to you?—S Marshall T/C 19:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

The NIH and CDC deserve a lot of weight. We mention Public Health English 6 times, the National Institute of Health 3 times, the CDC 5 times, and the WHO 4 times in the body. Yes the NIH and CDC get picture space because the US government is one of the only major healthcare organizations in the world to use open licenses.

We do not exclude images from the US government just because other health organizations are not willing to collaborate with us. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

We have 11 sources from PHE, one from WHO, 6 from the CDC and 6 from the NIH. I am simply not seeing the "undue" weight you raise.

Anyway must sleep. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

• As I said on the talk page, it's about image captions used as pull quotes. We describe the dispute accurately within the text. Of the 16 images in the article, there are a total of five with either captions or in-image text expressing concerns about marketing e-cigarettes to children. In other words, 31% of our images are used to underline this one point. Will you tell me that's proportionate?—S Marshall T/C 19:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
• And, just in case you missed it when I said this on the talk page as well:- It's an important point. It's a serious concern. It should be said, and I don't mind it having an image file associated with it either. Or even two images. My query is about whether there should be five.—S Marshall T/C 19:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Doc James:? Have you forgotten about this?—S Marshall T/C 18:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

We have one video from the NIH, a video from the CDC, and two pictures from the CDC. We also have a sexy young woman vaping near the top of the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

That's right, but it's not germane to what I'm saying. I think I need to show you a picture. Hang on...—S Marshall T/C 20:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• As you can see, I've drawn red boxes around all the allegations about selling e-cigarettes to children that are associated with media files in this image. That's four allegations and five files. Not shown: a fifth allegation/sixth file that I have managed to remove. I do hope that this is clear to you now?—S Marshall T/C 20:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
• Pinging @Doc James: in case this has once again eluded your attention.—S Marshall T/C 18:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Changed the caption of number two.[7] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you, that's a little progress, at least.—S Marshall T/C 19:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Excellent closing rationale, thanks. Hopefully that will prevent the ridiculous edit-warring that has been occurring on this article. Cheers, Black Kite (talk) 18:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for those kind words! All the best—S Marshall T/C 19:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Marshall, could you clarify what you mean for the November 24 DRV Quick link on the article I nominated? I was told I should respect WP:NoConsensus, to treat the AFD as a keep, and am under the impression I am not allowed to redirect the article. Thanks! DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• Hi mate, and thanks for visiting my talk page. We're in a slightly silly position of having (1) no consensus at the AfD and (2) no consensus to overturn at DRV. That's a complete non-result, and it gets us nowhere. But while I was closing I saw that editors were focusing on the procedure. In practice, hardly anyone objects to the redirect. A number of editors specifically say that a "redirect" or "merge" outcome is appropriate. In my view that's a reasonable outcome of this case. Who is telling you you're not allowed to redirect it and what reasons are they giving?—S Marshall T/C 16:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Marshall. I started a straw vote on the article I nominated with either keep or redirect. The voters under keep are saying that under WP:NoConsensus, the article should be kept. I'm not sure if I should keep the vote going or close it. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 17:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the WP:BOLD fix. It would have been ridiculous otherwise: closing a DRV as no-consensus on the grounds that nothing's preventing someone from redirecting, and then having people oppose a redirect on the grounds that the DRV closed as no-consensus. Reyk _YO! 21:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Also my thanks Marshall. I am a bit concerned an edit war might break out though. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 22:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Marshall, in a few days I plan on asking an admin to close the straw vote and redirect the article. Once again, I'd like to confirm hosting this straw vote was something I was allowed to do. Thanks. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 20:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• Yes: I think it was appropriate for you to do that in the circumstances. All the best—S Marshall T/C 22:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey, S Marshall. Just saw you on my watchlist with this edit. I'm about to leave Wikipedia again for a couple or few days, but, before I do, will you weigh in on the RfC topic I alerted editors to at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability? In the Discussion part of the RfC, I noted why the issue is important to me. If you'd rather not weigh in, that's fine. It's just that I wish that more policy-driven editors would give their take on this issue. If policy-driven editors disagree with my view, I'll suck it up and move on. I'll probably move on regardless of the RfC outcome. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Hi Flyer22, and thanks for visiting my talk page. I've seen that and I think it's a really hard one, because the sources really do say "murder" ---- but we can't identify a murderer, and I have concerns about the use of crime-words on Wikipedia in cases where a jury hasn't convicted someone. So I'm still reflecting on it. I may weigh in later. Have a merry Christmas! Seasonal cheer—S Marshall T/C 19:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, S Marshall. Yeah, I think what you stated is why more people aren't weighing in. I stated similarly to Snow Rise in the Discussion section. For me, though, it all comes down to whether or not the WP:NPOV policy is being used correctly.

Merry Christmas to you too. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I created Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beauty Pageants item 61 in an attempt to follow up on your closing of the previous RfC as a decision to try to create some sort of guideline. In the 2 weeks it has been opened, 4 editors (including me, the opener) have made comments on it. I am not sure how to publicize it better and I am reaching out to see if you can help me publicize it more.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Seems to be getting more participation now. All the best—S Marshall T/C 14:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello S Marshall. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Ajay Yadav, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: While this may have intially been a WP:X2 candidate, I think enough later edits have been made to this article for it not to be deleted under that criterion. As always, please *do challenge this if you think otherwise. . Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 10:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Just a note, when tagging for speedy deletion under the temporary criteria CSD X1 & X2, you can use the standard templates {{db-x1}} & {{db-x2}}. These templates will properly tag and categorize the target for deletion. Thanks. Safiel (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• Twinkle doesn't have them mate.—S Marshall T/C 18:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I have never edited Draft:Notability (beauty pageant participants) (except to remove the {{mfd}} tag) or its talk page (except to apply the {{old mfd}} template to it), nor made a comment in a discussion related to it (that I can recall). How was my closure involved? — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 19:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• I apologise wholeheartedly. The explanation is that I checked Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Notability (beauty pageant participants) and saw you'd edited it several times. I mistakenly believed that you had made a comment and then closed the discussion. Entirely my error. I would self-revert, but I see that the user has already withdrawn.—S Marshall T/C 19:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes I get bored talking about one topic for too long. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC) p.s. Rats! (the mildest swearword I could think of, because your edit notice says[8] we are allowed to swear here.

... regarding Virginia Grutter. After reading through your rationale on the AfD, I realized I made a mistake in declining the speedy deletion nomination and should have left it alone. I've reverted my removal of the CSD notice so an admin can take care of it. Apologies again - I failed to read through and assess the article accurately, and I will be more careful in the future. Appable (talk | contributions) 08:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I noticed you mentioned the CXT cleanup work at AfD. I hadn't heard of it and I'd like to help, perhaps by going through the retained pages copyediting to cleanup after the machine translation. What's the best way of going about that? Is there a preferred way to track progress? Mortee (talk) 13:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• Hi, @Mortee:, and thanks for stepping up! It's all very unstructured, like so much of Wikipedia ---- it relies on users finding their own way to help. If you speak any foreign languages, the translations need to be checked against the sources. Unfortunately we can't assume that the people who did the translation actually speak English ---- those articles were generated with a couple of mouse-clicks ---- so the checking process is a bit laborious I'm afraid. If not, then I suggest you look through the list and find some where the sources are in English? All the best —S Marshall T/C 18:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The result doesn't seem to be in line with my understanding of WP:X2, but maybe I don't know what I'm talking about. How often do you get this result at AfD? - Dank (push to talk) 18:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• Hi Dank, and thanks for taking an interest. That result is a bit bizarre, and I'd characterise it as an outlier.—S Marshall T/C 18:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I really try to focus on the stuff that I actually know something about, but there are trends that bother me on Wikipedia, such as the 17,000 unreviewed new pages, and anomalous AfD results such as this one. Is another RfC needed, or have we pretty well nailed down the relevant principles already? - Dank (push to talk) 18:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Well, I've wondered whether the outcome belongs at DRV. I'm not sure that there's justification for a full RFC as yet.—S Marshall T/C 18:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
      • Please ping me if it shows up at DRV. A deletion discussion would probably tell me more than the AfD did. - Dank (push to talk) 18:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
        • Only fair to talk to the closer first. @Coffee: - anything to add?—S Marshall T/C 18:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
          • Actually ... strike that, DRV would probably shift the focus to the current state of the article, which is fine. Please ping me if you see an AfD go the same way again, for an article that has no English-language sources, and has no sentences that have been verified from foreign-language sources by someone who's fluent in both languages. That would generate some useful discussion, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 18:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
          • X2 states "if the reviewing admin reasonably believes the page would not survive a full deletion discussion" then the page can be deleted. As the article survived a full deletion discussion, I don't see how X2 could possibly remain applicable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's part of the problem. The wording of X2 makes it a special case of WP:SNOW which is (a) pointless and (b) not reflective of the discussion and community consensus that established it. It should read "machine translation with no non-machine translated version in the history". We may also need wording that specifically addresses the misconception that we need to keep machine-generated articles because notability; several admins haven't grasped this ime.—S Marshall T/C 00:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

If you would give the nutshell and lead of WP:N a once-over, I think we might get on the same page about this... Notability is the gauge by which inclusion is determined (as long as WP:NOT is not violated). And as WP:X2 provides no stipulations nor authority over the notability guideline, the de facto consensus is for the notability rule to still apply. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

No it isn't. An article can be on a notable subject but still be deleted, whether it's on copyright grounds, or BLP, or failing any other core policy such as (germanely here) WP:V. Notability is not a free pass around Wikipedia's other rules at all; there's community consensus to delete these machine translations and it should be enforced.—S Marshall T/C 01:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)