Note Substantially all of the recent edits from this IP have been disruptive. I should probably just revert this, but will leave it for a 2nd opinion. Monty84515:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion linked in this nomination is from 2005. I'd like to point out that there have been many later discussions about this topic, but I don't have time now to find them all. The first of the sources linked above is clearly not reliable, but the New Statesman source might be something that we could use somewhere for coverage of this delusional thinking. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The discussion was closed with a no-consensus closure reason, however I'm inclined to accept it, the discussion could have been re-listed, which it wasn't, but the deletion reasons are far from fetched, but actually matches Wikipedia's spirit and guideline. The subject is only notable for his circumstances, but the subject itself is not notable. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 02:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC) Eduemoni↑talk↓02:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse On one side, this is a clear ONEEVENT situation. On the other, there was so much coverage of him, including his entire life, we've got plenty for an article on the person. Both are reasonable and numbers were close, so NC is a reasonable outcome. Hobit (talk) 03:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just note that Mark WilyD is in the right here and ONEEVENT is a significant stretch. So keep would also have been a reasonable (and likely preferred) outcome, but no consensus is still within administrative discretion. Hobit (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close We are told above to "Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process...". The initiator of this review says of the close that "I'm inclined to accept it...". We should therefore stop at that point. Warden (talk) 06:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it can be helpful sometimes to review an AFD even if the DRV nominator does not necessarily dispute the close. However WP:DRV does not include this as one of its purposes (nor something excluded from its purposes). When an article has been deleted it is no longer possible to discuss matters at its erstwhile talk page. In this case Talk:Trayvon Martin can be used to discuss how to proceed. To my mind the seeming request for deletion unnecessarily polarised the AFD discussion. The nominator surely intended some form of redirection/merge with Shooting of Trayvon Martin. Thincat (talk) 08:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your rationale does not apply, Comparison with Natalee is not applicable, her disappearance has spawned a chain of events which are linked or not to her, the fact she went missing, the circumstances of her presumably death, the investigation, the possible suspects and any chance or her reappearance. Elizabeth Smart is an activist. Comparing with Nicole Brown's article is also unsuitable, the article is brief and has no trivial information whereas Travyon Martin's article is full of non encyclopedic content, there is also a chain of articles related to the subject, there is a controversial book by OJ Simpson which encompasses their story, there is a handful of theories regarding the cases, whereas Martyn's received notoriety for his racial aspect and misleading media reports, e.g.: Zimmerman is eligible for having an article because of its aftermath. The current article is unsuitable for Wikipedia. Eduemoni↑talk↓19:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Hobit. On one hand, we discourage articles on individuals notable for just one event. On the other, he was central to one of the major news stories of the year that got massive and sustained coverage by reliable sources. In this case I think the article adds to our coverage of the event and that the encyclopedia is better with it than without it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind16:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin here (I wasn't notified of this discussion, BTW): both sides had reasonably policy-based arguments and relatively even numbers. It is certainly true that most people notable for one event don't get an article, but in exceptional cases, they can. The question was, is this an example of an exceptional case that merits a separate article? I think that the participants were reasonably well divided on that question. Since it's a judgment that the community has to make, I didn't feel that I could close it one certain way without casting a WP:SUPERVOTE. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to Keep - people need to read policies before trying to apply them, rather than just being aware of the catchy word with the blue link. Yes, when all of the sources are about an event, rather than a person, the person should only be covered in the context of that event. A quick perusal of the sources show that ain't the case. Actually clicking WP:ONEEVENT shows that this kind of situation is explicitly not what ONEEVENT is about (but you'll have to read all the way to the second paragraph). Given the primary "delete" "argument" appeals solely to a gross misrepresentation of policy, there's no delete argument at all. WilyD11:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ONEEVENT says that if an individual is covered solely because they were involved in an event, an article is not justified. None of the sources are about Trayvon at all - they are about the event and the effects of the event. Trayvon was just some random dude who isn't notable. (By the way, I was the one who nominated this for deletion). Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits03:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please actually read ONEEVENT before making assertions about what it says. It most definitely does not say that. It uses the specific example of Gavrilo Princip as someone notable solely because they were involved in a single event, who nonetheless should be covered in a biographical article because he was the subject of biographical sources as a result, in which he, rather than his participation in the event, was the focus of the source. Then, go and actually read the sources in the Trayvon Martin. Yes, a bunch of them are about his participation in the event, but a bunch are also just about him. Same principles. The problem with the delete argument is that it's based on factually incorrect assertions. In the future, please familiarise yourself with policies before trying to enforce them (and please familiarise yourself with articles before nominating them for deletion). WilyD10:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no consensus. - As Wily points out, ONEEVENT, at least its current wording, is not really applicable. From Wikipedia's biography article, the aspects of a biography are 1. account of a person's life. Yes, there plenty of GNG about that for the Trayvon Martin topic. 2. more than basic facts. Yes. the coverage is going to be very in-depth. 3. subject's experience of education, work, relationships, and death events. Yes, that is written about. So what's missing? Why doesn't a biography fit in this satiation?
In just about all cases, writers do not begin writing about someone's life at the moment that person is born. For example, biographers were not writing about Jesus or George Washington on the day of their birth. In most biographies, an event will trigger subsequent coverage of a person's life events apart from the now-past event. Forward coverage of a person's life makes a person's ordinary life events extra ordinary and subsequent coverage of a person's life apart from the now-past event justifies a biography. Sometimes, coverage of a person's life going forward causes writers to look backwards in time to critically evaluate that persons life before the event. In Trayvon Martin case, he really did not do anything out of the ordinary before the event that would cause writers to look backwards in time to critically evaluate his life before the event. They have written about it, but not because something he did stood out or merits critical review. Because he is deceased, there won't be any subsequent coverage of his life apart from the now-past event. So looking forwards and backwards, it does not seem that a biography is the main way to present Trayvon Martin's life elements.
I think our focus on comparing the BLP1E one event to the person's life elements or, in this AfD, high-profile coverage is misplace when determining whether a topic can be presented as a biography. Writers are now writing about Trayvon Martin's life merely because people are interested, not because the writers are motivated by the BLP1E event. So BLP1E is not an issue. However, because Trayvon Martin essentially lived an ordinary life before coverage of his life began, there is nothing that stands out in Trayvon Martin life to justify a Wikipedia biography article. However, that is AfD argument, not DRV comment. The AfD debate was divided, so endorse no consensus. -- Jreferee (talk) 04:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no consensus close. I am sympathetic to the closer as there was little likelihood that any close would not bring opposition and a referral to DRV. However, based on the arguments made, where both "sides" made decent points but were in my opinion not able to refuse the other side, it is impossible to claim that there was a consensus for any particular outcome. Lankiveil(speak to me)08:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Endorse The close was clearly within the discretion of the closing admin, even though the "delete" arguments were so weak I would have been inclined to close it as "keep" (and I say that as someone initially inclined to think deletion would have been appropriate, until I examined what policy actually said). WP:ONEEVENT states: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Few of those supporting deletion explained how that was inapplicable. Judging by the amount of coverage in reliable sources, this clearly qualifies as a highly significant event (and we shouldn't seek to substitute our own views on its significance for those of reliable sources). And they clearly treated him as playing a large role in the incident, as I would have thought was obvious in the case of a confrontation between two people in which one fatally shoots the other. Neljack (talk) 06:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep. The misapplications of policy by the delete voters were given far too much weight in assigning a no consensus close. `Jclemens (talk) 08:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both "no consensus" and "keep" were within discretion based on that debate. I think I'd personally have preferred "keep" but I won't give Mark Arsten a hard time for going the other way.—S MarshallT/C08:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
List of Other Backward Classes – No consensus to change closure. I think the most that can be gathered from this discussion is a general feeling that there was probably no consensus to merge (or delete, or keep) the article in the AfD, but that a merger in some form seems to be the outcome that is acceptable to the greatest number of contributors. But we have no consensus here about what the correct closure ought to have been. I suggest that what to do with the article now is a matter for the normal editorial process or possibly a second deletion discussion if the proposed merger does not happen or remains contested. – Sandstein 10:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The closer describes this as "Bit of an odd close...". That's because the supposed consensus which was recorded was scarcely mentioned in the discussion and no editor had this as their !vote. The close is therefore a supervote contrary to WP:DGFA, "Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants." Warden (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC) Warden (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's possible that the closer applied the concepts in Wikipedia:Delete or merge as linked from the Deletion policy WP:ATD-M. Cyclopia mentioned merge at the end of the Sitush, Orlady, Cyclopia discussion. I don't yet have an opinion on whether the closer of the deletion discussion, Black Kite, interpreted the consensus incorrectly, but I think that Black Kite did try to use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants. Did you discussed the matter with Black Kite first? -- Jreferee (talk) 14:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I posted on his talk page but that section has been archived now. He did not reply directly to my query, only to the comments of another editor. I did not get the impression that he was interested in pursuing the matter. Warden (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's because you didn't make it clear what you wanted me to reconsider. Posting on an admin's talk page saying "I think you got it wrong" isn't exactly helpful unless you explain what you think is the problem. And I think Sitush got the issue spot on in that discussion anyway.Black Kite (talk) 17:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The quotation given by Black Kite is not accurate. I actually raised two points: "...merger hardly got any support in the discussion and the page is so large that merger would be technically problematic." Black Kite's support for Sitush's position and refusal to acknowledge the Keep position seems to indicate that they were not impartial. Warden (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I hardly think I can be accused of being partial on a page I've never even seen before (although I am not surprised that you have done). In that csse - no, none of the Keep votes addressed the issue brought up from the previous splitting of the article, and two of them were merely ITSNOTABLE. Black Kite (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There was no previous splitting - the page was a fresh start. The nomination talks of a proposal to split which was made on the talk page on account of the list's great size. The previous AFD nomination was because the page was, at that time, quite small, being started from scratch. The result of that AFD was a Keep in the expectation that the page would be expanded. The expansion was done and then the page was attacked for being too large. There's no pleasing some people. Anyway, as Black Kite does not seem to understand the history of the matter, it seems inappropriate for them to have been making novel and challenging suggestions as if they had consensus. Warden (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Although my !vote in the AfD discussion was "Delete or move to user space," my comments there did in fact support merger as an option. My comments stated: "Wikipedia can describe aspects of the topic of OBCs in the article Other Backward Classes and related articles, and those articles can describe the national list and the lists for individual states..." --Orlady (talk) 16:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC) I should clarify that my support was for selective merger as an option. --Orlady (talk) 18:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse or Overturn to Delete. Unfortunately the previous discussino on my talkpage got archived whilst I was temporarily inactive. As I said, the close was, as far as I could see, the only alternative to Delete. I cannot see any other option. Black Kite (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning toward overturn because I'm not seeing a policy-based reason for deletion anywhere and the discussion seems to be split. The most common argument is that the list is just too hard to maintain, which isn't normally a reason to delete (and lacks consensus). There is also some waving in the general direction of WP:NOT (I think) but no one really spelled it out. Given the folks involved, I'm guessing I'm missing something (I know nearly nothing about castes in India, so maybe that's it). Help? Hobit (talk) 03:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When there is a split keep/delete discussion, I'm often rather pleased when an admin can winkle out a merge or redirect result. I'm not at all sure of the validity of deleting long or awkward-to-maintain articles but, unfortunately, I don't see how merge can be a solution if the article indeed has this problem. Thincat (talk) 09:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with both sides here. I agree with Warden to the extent that don't think there was a consensus to merge into that debate. But I also agree with Black Kite's conclusion, that a merge is the least bad of the available outcomes. I think the best way forward would be to understand this close in two parts. First, there was the administrative assessment of the inconclusive discussion (outcome: "no consensus"), and then, as a separate and subsequent action, there was the rather well-judged editorial decision to merge.
Strictly speaking, we should probably overturn to no consensus and then endorse the editorial decision to merge. This is a longwinded and bureaucratic procedure. Although I don't think it's necessary for DRV to do all that, I'm also not confident that it's appropriate to use the word "endorse" when the final outcome wasn't recommended by any of the debate participants. I think the short form for what I'm saying is keep merged.—S MarshallT/C12:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced a merge (if by that we mean to incorporate the whole list) is editorially wise, but that is irrelevant here. If we had had a close of "no consensus" it was then open to anyone to go and do a merge anyway although it could not have claimed any AFD or admin authority. As things stand there is some type of claim for an authority to merge though basis for the claim is pretty shaky. At present no one has seemed willing (or able!) to do any sort of merge. Thincat (talk) 13:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As it happens, I tried to implement the merger. I edited Other Backward Class shortly after the AFD closed to incorporate the content from this list article that I deemed to be suitable for inclusion there: diff. I didn't change the list article, as I didn't want to interfere with others who might disagree with my choices. --Orlady (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What's this "admin authority" you mention? I'm aware of no such concept. On Wikipedia, authority comes from consensus, except on the rare occasions when the WMF stick their oar in. But I don't believe any reasonable person could look at that debate and find a consensus to merge. BK isn't trying to pretend there was any such consensus. The merge was a decision rather than a consensus, and therefore it was an editorial action rather than an administrative one.—S MarshallT/C20:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from BK's close statement, he placed a large official-looking template at the top of the article stating boldly "The debate was closed on 08 September 2013 with a consensus to merge the content into the article Other Backward Class." The edit summary for this was "(Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Other Backward Classes (2nd nomination) closed as merge to Other Backward Class)". These seem to be clear assertions of consensus and administrative authority. Warden (talk) 23:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I expect that's attributable to the use of automated tools for AfD closing rather than any intended misrepresentation by Black Kite.—S MarshallT/C07:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am happy with a merge and did suggest a possible way forward on that after Colonel Warden posted a note on Black Kite's talk page. Honestly, folks, the list was going nowhere in its form as at AfD and it really is irretrievable. There are times when IAR does apply and this is one of them. Black Kite managed to find a sensible result for a messy situation. The reason that I didn't merge it was because I was waiting for this DRV - there has been a pattern relating to similar lists and I suspected it was inevitable that someone from ARS would challenge the decision. - Sitush (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But your vision of merger is not to actually retain any of the content is it? The article is currently about 400K. Please tell us what percentage of this content your "merger" would preserve and whether this would be functionally different from deletion? Warden (talk) 00:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. It didn't look at all like a merge to me. I suppose this is the diff. It doesn't seem to have followed the procedures in WP:MERGE and, process apart, it hasn't come close to implementing the spirit of merging the list article because the list has gone completely. I am not objecting from an editorial point of view but I feel the edits seem to have little to do with AFD consensus. If the closer had thought the consensus was to do something like this then it was essential that the closing rationale should say so. Thincat (talk) 09:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep There was no numeric consensus to delete this and more so, there was no valid deletion argument advanced at any point. And no one, including the closer has advanced such an argument in this DRV. There isn't even a case for merging (what exactly does the closer think should be merged?) The claimed problem with the base article is that it is too long and unmanageable. I don't see how merging helps that. And I don't see how the discussion could possibly lead to a merge outcome. Hobit (talk) 12:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC) Hobit (talk) 01:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your deletion argument is basically "WP:IAR". And that's a fine argument (I use it all the time), but IAR only applies if there is consensus. And there was none here. Hobit (talk) 02:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I really do think everyone was acting with the best of intentions but, possibly with hindsight, the AFD nomination, discussion and close were all unsatisfactory for the reasons given above. Editorial matters like this are best dealt with using talk page discussion, not AFD. Thincat (talk) 09:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen how much discussion has gone on at this and the related articles, including ANI reports, topic bans etc? Warden is a classic example of someone who doesn't understand the topic area and is applying dogmatic principles when a pragmatic approach involving IAR and COMMONSENSE are needed. Hence they requested userfication of this list of castes last year when it was deleted and haven't worked on it since. Keeping a list for the hell of it is just plain silly. I do hope that every person who is favouring that approach is going to start contributing to the subject area - I can't see many (if any) above who do. If this thing is overturned and kept then I am stubbing it and I will keep on stubbing it, consensus or no consensus. So everyone can start drafting their ANI reports right now. - Sitush (talk) 10:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While this does not go to whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly, I can't help but wonder whether this page merely is a Wikipedia mirror list of the central list maintained by the National Commission for Backward Classes? Is the only difference of note between Wikipedia's list and the National Commission list[1] functional since Wikipedia's list allows sorting to be done by various criteria? If that is the case, the difference needs to be encyclopedic, not functional. -- Jreferee (talk) 03:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All our work is supposed to reflect the content of external sources. The fact that this is based upon an external list is a reason to keep it, not delete it, because this is the main test of list notability — see WP:LISTN. We add value to the information and make it more accessible by integrating it with the rest of our content. You can see this at the equivalent US list — List of federally recognized tribes — which is based upon official lists published in the Federal Register. Notice that all the entries in that list are now blue links. This helps the reader by providing convenient links to our coverage of those tribes. It also helps us editorially because the process of linking highlights where we have gaps in our coverage - the name of the tribe would appear as a red link. By tying our coverage to such a list, we validate it and ensure its completeness.
As an example, I started this process of linking for the OBC list during the AFD. The first entry in the list is the Karen. These people originally came from Burma. Sitush opposed direct linkage for some reason so I created an article for the separate group in India — Karen of the Andamans — and that's now the first blue link. They are a small but distinctive tribe in the Andaman Islands and my work established that they are notable. This activity shows the value of the list as a driver for Wikipedia development — encouraging us to develop our content within a well-recognised official structure, rather than as hundreds of independent articles.
Warden, you know exactly why I and others with experience of the subject have objected to the linking. Indeed, your very poor attempt to link and then create a new Karen article proved the point: you really had not got a clue, however good your intentions may have been. We do not need lists to create articles and there are very specific reasons why it would be inappropriate to drive creation from this list. I do not understand your continued obtuse attitude given that it has all been explained to you on several occasions.
There are 4,600+ officially identified caste groups in India, most of which have 20 or 30 gotras and many of which exist in more than one state. Few of these are documented outside of primary sources. The scope for ambiguity is enormous and is recognised by the very primary sources that the list is based on, which also implicitly acknowledges that they are incomplete. Just about the only people who seem consistently not to recognise the issues are yourself and the topic-banned User:Doncram. Our extant coverage of caste is poor: adding more half-cocked articles is not going to improve it. Links in Other Backward Classes to the primary source OBC lists published by the NCBC should be sufficient to drive anyone who really does want to improve the encyclopaedia rather than merely make a point. Those links would constitute the merger, since there is nothing in List of Other Backward Classes that cannot be found within those externally-hosted documents. Our list merely duplicates the externally-hosted information and is highly unlikely to remain in sync with it. Keeping the detailed list does no-one any favours. - Sitush (talk) 23:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
D-Cubed – Yes, your sandbox would be a good start or I could put the deleted article in your userspace to work on. Feel free to continue the discussion on my talkpage. – SpartazHumbug!05:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Comment - MingleLane, Siemens is such a large company that I do not think you can find enough Wikpedia reliable source material on Siemens' D-Cubed 3D component software products to justify a stand-alone article under the WP:SUMMARY requirements, particularly since D-Cubed is not even mentioned in Wikipedia's Siemens article and the D-Cubed software is used as a subcomponent of other software that would receive the news coverage. However, information on D-Cubed Ltd. of Cambridge, England goes back to at least February 1990.[3] Rather than writing an article having the D-Cubed technology or D-Cubed components as the main topic, I think you can get the D-Cubed components information into a Wikipedia article having the D-Cubed (company) as the main topic. When D-Cubed was acquired by UFS in 2004, it still retained an identity as UGS' D-Cubed subsidiary. When UGS was acquired by Siemens in May 2007, I did not find any mention of D-Cubed. An approach you may want to take is to write a Wikipedia article D-Cubed Ltd's 1990 to 2007 history, add info about the D-Cubed technology through 2007, and note at the end of the article something along the lines that the D-Cubed technology now reside with Siemens, where it continues to be developed and licensed under the D-Cubed trademark.[4] -- Jreferee (talk) 14:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone. I am not so much asking for a deletion review as trying to understand the community's criteria for acceptable references (I have read the guidelines). I have found more references, and I found Jreferee's advice to be insightful. Is there a way to perhaps draft a new version of the article, but without publication, and then obtain feedback on the content and its references? If so, is my sandbox the place for this? If the new version still isn't up to scratch, that would be fine with me, and I would have learned a lot in the process. MingleLane (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse by default, per lack of reasoning. Trying to learn more about Wikipedia is admirable, but this isn't a request to change the deletion outcome, and no argument has been brought forth that the situation has changed substantially since the 6th. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind01:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Theresa Obermeyer – This is one of those DRVs that crop up from time to time that are really nasty to close and the outcome is by no means straightforward. While admins do have a wide discretion in deciding what weight to give votes in a discussion the rough consensus is something that has to be measured by looking at the strength of argument against policy. In this case the discussion was clearly closed against the wrong standard. POLOUTCOMES is an essay and does not constitue an inclusion standard. The correct policy would be POLITICIAN which notes that failed candidates can be notable by virtue of meeting N through significant coverage in independant reliable sources. Such sources have been provided in the discussion but have not been discussed in depth in a way that would allow a closing admin to assess their value without a supervote. In that respect the discussion was defective.
A lot of the delete votes are asserting that failed candidates are inherantly non-notable. This is not a policy based argument as POLITICIAN makes clear. Articles for non-notable figures can be redirected to the election but there is no clear consensus following the sources presented that the subject is non-notable.
This then leaves the argument around deletion at the request of the subject. Arguably this isn't in play as courtesy deletion is available to an admin when closing a deletion discussion and the closing admin redirected rather then deleted and doesn't cite BLP in the close but we do have numerous references to BLP in this discussion. Lets be clear about that, the policy for this refers explictly to non-public figures. By no stretch can this subject be called non-public by virture of standing for election on a number of occasions she is expictly making herself a public figure. This leaves the only relevant BLP precept of doing no harm. I think we can all agree on that one but the solution of that is not routinely to delete but to monitor and protect as necessary.
So where does that leave us? Based on this discussion the AFD close cannot be allowed to stand as the discussion was defective and failed to properly assess the sources presented and there is no-consensus that the subject is non-notable. I personally don't think the close was an easy one and the closer most certainly does not deserve any criticism for trying to find the best way out of this discussion. The AFD is therefore overturned to No Consensus. – SpartazHumbug!22:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Reverting the close before bringing it here does not paint you in a particularly good light. Would leaving it a redirect for the couple of days it'll take until the closure's properly reviewed really do that much harm? 74.74.150.139 (talk) 22:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Articles under discussion at DRV are routinely restored during the course of the discussion. Normally, this requires an admin to restore a deleted article, but since this was simply converted to a redirect, any editor (myself included) can "restore" it. The article should not be re-converted to a redirect until this discussion is concluded. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm almost past caring about this, but I don't think this was an incorrect close. To be sure, there is no consensus for redirect (nor for anything else, for that matter), but per deletion policy: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete." Given that the bar for a non-public person, per BLP is "not well known" and deliberately separate from (and stricter than) their notability, I would think it's within reasonable discretion to say that this person is not well known, and thus the AfD could be closed as "Delete" (or in this case, the less severe "redirect") without an actual consensus for that. Whether that's as who should say right or not, I dunno, but I think it's within policy; policy more-or-less-explicitly gives admins the discretion to supervote on the side of delete here. So, if it matters, I guess I endorse the close or whatever. Writ Keeper⚇♔22:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
policy more-or-less-explicitly gives admins the discretion to supervote on the side of delete here - Can you cite the policy that allows admins to supervote? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as closer. This was perfectly normal per WP:POLOUTCOMES. It's unfortunate that Beyond My Ken chose not to follow WP:DELREVD and discuss this with me first. I must say, I'm surprised to see a keep voter bringing this up, however; an all-out delete would certainly be the next most reasonable action from that discussion. --BDD (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect is the equivalent of a delete, as the article redirected to has no information about the subject except her name. I'm surprised that BDD is surprised. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very sadly endorse. BLPDELETE should not stretch this far. Someone with a dozen articles (many predating the senate run) and was a Democratic nominee for senate is a "relatively unknown, non-public figure"? Oyi. But that was the consensus (though NC was also a reasonable read). And redirecting rather than deleting was exactly the right thing to do given there is a clear redirection target. Hobit (talk) 03:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to note that while I think the close was within admin discretion, I think the better call was to close this as NC. User:Lukeno94 makes a strong case for that. Further, many of the endorse !votes are really problematic. She clearly meets the GNG so citing WP:POLITICIAN (which clearly defers to the GNG via WP:BASIC) as a reason to delete is just wrong. And WP:POLOUTCOMES is even worse as a reason to delete an article which meets the GNG by such a wide margin. At the same time, I don't think a close of keep could be supported by that discussion. Hobit (talk) 13:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I didn't actually !vote in the discussion, though I did participate. In my opinion, the close is clearly within the range of closer discretion, and it need not be disturbed. Monty84504:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as outrageous misuse of policy, that needs a new discussion. (in truth,. the very idea of letting borderline people delete their own article is antithetical to the spirit of NPOV except as a rare exception to prevent true injustice, and is bad policy in almost all cases. It has wormed its way increasingly into WP, and this extreme overextension should be excised, but i see no way of thoroughly excising it except a re-evaluation of that part of BLP policy. Its absurd application here to a major party candidate for senate shows the danger of having it around at all.) But while it is around it should be used with very careful judgement, and the use of it here is utterly ridiculous and opposed to common sense. To ignore rationality is outside the discretion of a closer. The purpose of being an admin to to protect the fundamental principles of WP against this sort of illegitimate decision. Process failed here, but not only process. Those people who do support the retention of the option for deletion of borderline notable people should be among the first to want to overturn this decision. I suggest that those who say the equivalent of "regretfully endorse" think again. We have the power to do things right here, and if the explicit justifications fail, IAR remains. I urge the closer to reconsider what his following of local consensus is leading to. (Reading the AfD yet again, there is a particular problem here: judging by the discussion, she's changed what she wants to do politically, and wishes to write herself out of history. This is truly the grossest violation of NPOV imaginable, and I remain amazed that anyone here would abet this for anyone in any way.) DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are two issues. A) Is WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE broken? and B) did the close follow current policy? I agree with you that A is quite troubling. I understand where it comes from but I don't think it is wise. I worry less about NPOV (though I agree is a potential problem) than I do self-censorship and a worry that the bar is set so vaguely that nearly anyone can get under it. But changing policy is an issue for an RfC, not an AfD. For B) I think the question of being a "relatively unknown, non-public figure" is one of opinion, not of simple fact. A significant majority agreed she was. Hobit (talk) 06:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that a major party candidate for the U.S. Senate qualifies as a "non-public figure" stretches the commonsense meaning of that phrase well past the point of reasonableness. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the general question, a case can be made that the rule is occasionally needed--there are valid circumstances, which if we handled by IAR would cause even more problems. I once did delete at AfD based on it when I realized doing anything else was making me feel sleazy. The pt about NPOV is exactly self-censorship -- a subject saying, unless you change it to read the way I want it, you can't have it--and thus our articles about mildly notable people will all be positive, like Whos Who in America. On the second, Calling someone who runs for political office private might be debatable for dogcatcher--I don't think it is in good faith debatable here unless one does not understand what the words mean. The basic rule for BLP--Do No Harm-- is a good one, and we should hold to it, not to futile attempts to cover all that can happen in exact wording. The extent of publicity she has already received is so great that having this article does not appreciably add to it. She's part of political history beyond anything we can do at WP. DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Closer gave far too much credence to !votes which asserted marginal notability, which was clearly refuted by RS'es present in the discussion. Thus, the subject's wishes are irrelevant. In other words, what DGG said. Jclemens (talk) 07:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I broadly agree with Jclemens, and to a lesser extent with DGG although DGG puts it more stridently than I would. I think it's important that the DRV leads to a clear explanation of why this close needs overturning, given that on the basis of the numbers, it wasn't obviously wrong. My thought process is as follows:-
First point. Premise #1: Not all !votes are equal. Premise #2: Sources matter. Conclusion: If someone provides a list of reliable sources about the subject, then all claims that the subject isn't notable are refuted. They aren't given less weight in the close. They are utterly discounted. Gone. The "non-notable" camp's only remaining avenue is to examine the sources in depth and demonstrate that they're somehow unreliable or unsatisfactory. This was not done.
Second point. There is a hierarchy of rules on Wikipedia. Some rules are old and strong and enjoy massive consensus support. Other rules are younger and weaker and have been less tested. Where there's conflict between the rules, the older, stronger rules trump the newcomers. Thus, for example, it doesn't matter whether the article passes or fails WP:YETANOTHERSPECIFICNOTABILITYGUIDELINE if the whole blooming thing is a copyright violation. It doesn't matter whether the article title passes or fails some aspect of the manual of style if it's an attack page. And it doesn't matter if it fails WP:POLITICIAN if it passes the general notability guideline by a country mile. Conclusion: WP:POLITICIAN is a red herring, irrelevant to this case.
When analysing the debate bearing these two points in mind, one sees that Fram's contributions are absolutely decisive. The correct conclusion for this DRV is a resounding and emphatic overturn to keep.—S MarshallT/C08:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fram presented Google numbers and not much else. Do you still think the Books results indicate any sort of notability? The first page suggests 75 hits, which proves to be 42 if you actually look at all the results, and three of those are books consisting of Wikipedia articles. Of the remaining 39, not all are even talking about this Theresa Obermeyer, and almost all of those that are are almanacs and other political guides that mention her name, party affiliation, and vote share. I see one source that might be up to GNG standards, and that's a small piece in the NYT Magazine. As for the general Google results, Fram didn't include the crucial -wikipedia operator. Do that and you'll see little relevant coverage beyond the first page of results (and as often, there are still a lot of Wikipedia derivatives in there). --BDD (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I think indicates notability is all the coverage in the Anchorage Daily News that Fram linked so clearly. Is it seriously your position that these 1992-4 and on sources are all Wikipedia mirrors? Or a different Theresa Obermeyer? Really?—S MarshallT/C19:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned this below, but I should have put it to you as well. There's a reason POLITICIAN essentially creates a stricter standard than GNG. Is it really so remarkable that the Anchorage Daily News reports on elected officials in Anchorage? If a slew of articles in the local paper constitutes meeting GNG, there's no practical limit to the number of mayors, city council members, and yes, school board members that would be adjudged sufficiently notable for standalone articles. To deem Obermeyer thus notable would go against a very deep and abiding consensus, and I haven't see a compelling reason to do so. --BDD (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, hang on. If being mentioned in a local newspaper was the standard, then I would agree with you. I've personally been mentioned in local newspapers enough times for that, and there's no way that I'm notable. But here we're not talking about articles that mention Theresa Obermeyer in connection with a decision, or in connection with her office as a school governor or whatever she is. What we're talking about is articles about Theresa Obermeyer the person, doing things and behaving in ways that are quite remarkable and exceptional for an office-holder, to the obvious amazement of the journalists covering her, and to the exasperation of local judges. She is, in short, notorious.
Your redirection entirely misses the point. She isn't notable for not being elected in 2006; you've redirected her to something only tangentially relevant to the reason why someone would search for her. What she's actually notable for is getting into arguments, insulting people, assaulting security guards, being fined, being arrested, and other generally thuggish and disreputable behaviour while holding public office. Wouldn't you agree?—S MarshallT/C22:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Addendum): Sorry: I should have added another point but inadvertently forgot it. I should use preview more.
You make much, in your discussion, of the fact that she fails WP:POLITICIAN. That's absolutely true. She also fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:PROF, WP:ATHLETE and WP:PORNBIO, among quite a lot of other SNGs. It doesn't matter. Wikipedia's test of notability is the general notability guideline. I have said above that I'm reluctant to accept mentions in local newspapers, and that's true: it's accepted that routine coverage in a local newspaper is not evidence of notability. I put it to you that headlines such as the ones Fram linked are not run-of-the-mill routine coverage.—S MarshallT/C22:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I must be misreading your first point. It seems you admit that the relevant coverage was all local, but she still passes GNG because she was notorious? So local coverage is sufficient if a person is notorious? As for your second point, if subject notability guidelines are trumped by GNG, why do we have them to begin with? Generally, more specific guidelines trump general ones, hence WP:USPLACE, MOS:MED, WP:FLORA, etc. frequently override WP:COMMONNAME. --BDD (talk) 16:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I said two things with regard to local coverage. The first thing I said is that I don't think being mentioned in local sources counts as evidence of notability, but being the actual subject of an article might well do. The second thing I said is that I don't think run-of-the-mill routine coverage of the normal functions of, say, local government or school boards is evidence of notability, but the coverage in the Anchorage newspaper is clearly not that at all.
The standard position at Deletion Review is that if there's conflict between a SNG and the GNG, the GNG prevails. This is quite normal, and it occurs because someone's notability may be unconnected with their profession. No rational person would delete Kate Middleton even though she's a fashion designer who fails WP:CREATIVE.
When you closed the debate did you actually examine Fram's sources at all? I ask because several things you've said suggest to me that you may not have done.—S MarshallT/C16:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we wouldn't delete Kate Middleton per WP:CREATIVE. She isn't primarily known as a fashion designer. One thing we can surely agree on is that Obermeyer is best known as a politician. So why shouldn't she be judged on those term? Also, as I mentioned to Fram below, my references to the Google and Google Books results were mistaken; those were presented by another user. --BDD (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably it is, but let me take a step back for a moment, because it looks as if I'm giving you a really hard time here and I don't think you deserve that. I think this was quite a difficult close, and I've done a complete about-face from what I often say at DRV. I'm being inconsistent.
What I normally say is that the closer's job is to assess the consensus, not the sources. Admins aren't elected to judge sources. They're elected to gauge consensus and implement it, and with most debates it's not necessary for the closer to look at the sources in any depth at all. The closer looks to see who was persuaded by the sources. You could have said: "No, I didn't read Fram's sources because that's not my job; I gauged the consensus and found there was none. Then I redirected it, not in my capacity as an admin but just as any ordinary editor could do, because of WP:POLITICIAN" And that would have been a very fair position to take, I think, even though it's not quite what you've said.
One of the striking things about this debate is that Fram's sources that should have been decisive, weren't. They were virtually ignored by all the debate participants before and since. I suspect that was because nobody except Fram bothered to read them at all until we got as far as this DRV. At DRV we're obviously accustomed to more complicated and nuanced debates, and I think that without wanting to be unkind to anyone, DRV regulars do tend to read sources more attentively before commenting just because of the nature of this page.
I also want to say that I really do feel the force of what Fram says below. I sympathise with his frustration, having done quite a lot of work at the AfD and getting this far before anyone pays much attention to it. But I also don't think BDD's entirely to blame because as I've argued above, it's not him who should have read the sources.
For the avoidance of doubt my position is that WP:POLITICIAN is not the correct criterion. Ms Obermeyer isn't notable as a politician (by Wikipedia's definition of notability). She's notable for a combination of repeated and sustained involvement in controversy and brushes with the law while holding a relatively minor office.—S MarshallT/C17:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:BDD (talk·contribs), I haven't closely read the AfD and will not take a position at this DRV, but I noticed that you did not leave a closing rationale at the contentious AfD. To help the participants at this DRV understand your reasoning, would you add a rationale to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theresa Obermeyer
expanding on your comment above about WP:POLOUTCOMES (and addressing S Marshall's analysis above about WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG),
explaining why you chose a redirect rather than "keep", "no consensus", or "delete", and
explaining whether/how WP:BLP (particularly WP:BLPDELETE) factored into your close?
Done I think I hit most of those points. Overlooked in the discussion is the fact that the Google numbers thrown around to support the GNG argument had little to no significant coverage in reliable sources. It may seem unfair that some specific notability guidelines set stricter criteria than GNG, but there's almost always a good reason for their doing so. In this case, almost any local political figure would pass GNG as the subject of multiple independent press sources. I alluded to this in that rationale, addressing the argument that a list of her school board activities covered in the Anchorage press indicates of GNG.
One thing I didn't really address is BLPREQUESTDELETE, which really only factored into my close inasmuch as many delete voters were making it. If I had followed that to the letter, I certainly could have closed as delete in light of the request and the absence of a clear consensus to keep. Like I said before, I'm really surprised that it was a keep voter who brought this all up. A lot of editors and the subject advocated outright deletion. I didn't expect a DRV at all, but if I had, I would've expected it from that side. --BDD (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just what BLP concern? That she now realizes she has been irretrievably foolish? that holds for indiscretions, not maintaining a political campaign for months before a national audience for something that will inevitably remain part of the historical record. DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The BLP concern is that she has a degree of notability for the campaign, but that any article about her is going to end up with some rather petty negative elements (properly sourced) that would never justify an article on their own. Essentially, that the run for senate serves as justification for the existence of an attack page, albeit a properly sourced one. Monty84517:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very well said. An article about a school board member who had been embroiled in some local controversies would never stand. The contention of keep voters seems to hinge on her being a major-party candidate for Senate—which you'll notice still doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN. Furthermore, some knowledge of US politics is instructive. Until scandals made him vulnerable, Democrats fielded paper candidates against Ted Stevens. I'm only half joking when I say that in the 90s, there was only one major party in Alaska. Look at {{Democratic Alaska Senatorial nominees}}. Besides governors and elected Senators, there are three blue links: a speaker of the state legislature, Scott McAdams (who received extensive coverage in a high-profile race), and Obermeyer. She simply isn't the sort of national figure or prominent state figure required to conclusively meet POLITICIAN.
I understand DGG's concerns. I don't share them, but I understand them. I'd be concerned if I thought we were setting a precedent allowing notable politicians to erase their negative biographies, but that's simply not what has happened, not just because the negative material is still accessible via page history. When there are serious disagreements over a politician's notability, following WP:POLOUTCOMES is almost always the right answer. --BDD (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No! This should be restored. BLP policy is being misunderstood and misused here. Our BLP policy is a mandate to remove unsourced information about living people. It does not say "remove well-sourced information about living people". It does not say "delete articles about living people if they say negative things". And it certainly does not say "delete articles about living people at their own request". Put it back.—S MarshallT/C23:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Disclosure: I participated in the AFD, opining first for deletion, then for a redirect after some discussion. In my view, Monty845 has this one pretty right. Without her Senate runs, there is not much to make her notable. Her selection as a sacrificial lamb (to run in a Senate race she would never win; she actually came third behind the Green party candidate) shouldn't be used as justification for creating an article that chronicles local controversy that would never otherwise be covered here in its own right. Stalwart11101:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per BDD above, whose arguments I agree with. It's also a bit disappointing that the person opening this DRV elected not to try and discuss it with the closing admin. Disclosure: I participated in the original AFD discussion. Lankiveil(speak to me)10:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Overturn to keep I was going to be neutral, then I've read the rationale: " It's natural that the Anchorage press would give coverage to an Anchorage school board member, but keeping on this basis would, frankly, set a terrible precedent." - What the closer calls a "terrible precedent" is translated, in English, "standard application of our notability guidelines". It doesn't matter if you're notable in Anchorage or in New York: if there is secondary sources coverage, you are notable. This has been demonstrated by Fram by listing a dozen or so sources along a decade covering the subject. If that is the rationale for the redirect, I cannot endorse it. The terrible precedent would actually be such a rationale being endorsed. --cyclopiaspeak!21:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment of Tobermeyer6, posted at the closed AfD[5] and reading in part "... it looks like my name both "Theresa Obermeyer" and "Theresa Nangle Obermeyer" ..."
I am not an expert on Wikipedia but it looks like my name both "Theresa Obermeyer" and "Theresa Nangle Obermeyer" both are only about the U.S. Senate Race 1996. That is ridiculous. The campaign was 17 years ago. Ted Stevens left the U.S. Senate in 2008 and died in 2010. Why have you posted information about the U.S. Senate Race 1996 when anyone types my name? A short vita is below.
THERESA NANGLE OBERMEYER, Ph.D., has held Alaska Type A Teaching Certificate since 1979 and Alaska Real Estate Broker’s License since 1979. She received her Ph.D. from St. Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri 1975 and her Master of Education 1970 from the same institution. She majored in Political Science and minored in History, English, and Education at Maryville University from which she graduated 1967, St. Louis, Missouri. She graduated from Villa Duchesne High School, 1963. Dr. Obermeyer held public office on Anchorage School Board 1990-94 and prior to that taught at McLaughlin High School 1984-90. She was her Party's Nominee to U.S. Senate 1996. She has been a college administrator at four colleges in three states including Lindenwood University, Loyola University Maryland, St. Louis Community College at Florissant Valley, and University of Alaska. She taught Introduction to Sociology at Chapman University Fort Richardson/Elemndorf part-time 1981-1993. She was a Fulbright Fellow twice to India 1974 and to Jordan 1977. She is married with four adult children.
Endorse - as a redirect with no history. The subject is not super notable, and even if GNG can be argued, it's BLP1E. Her name is a plausible search term, thus a redirect is appropriate. ~Charmlet-talk-03:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to point out that if the AfD closer bases his close on what he presents here, then he should reopen the AfD and let someone else close it:
"Fram presented Google numbers and not much else." I did not present any "Google number", I presented 17 individual newspaper articles and one article, "Gag Her with an Injunction" from the American Journalism Review where the "her" of the title is Obermeyer. "Do you still think the Books results indicate any sort of notability?" is the next line from BDDs reply here, but I didn't even link to Google Books.
"As for the general Google results, Fram didn't include the crucial -wikipedia operator." I did not present general Google results, so I have no idea what BDD is talking about here. I presented 17 individual articles from between 1992 and 2001, so the "crucial -Wikipedia operator" is completely irrelevant here.
"a list of her school board activities covered in the Anchorage press" is not what the sources are about at all. Most school board members don't get jailed or don't become a major party candidate for the US senate. These are not "school board member Obermeyer sold cookies" type of articles.
I don't really care how this eventually is closed (AfD and DRV), but I would prefer to have a closer who accurately represents the AfD and the effort people have put into it. A closer who has either not read the AFD with any close attention, or prefers to misrepresent the AfD to support his close, should be disregarded and someone else should close it instead. Fram (talk) 07:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just add that the deletion of the article at 15:25, 21 September 2013 by User:Jonathunder is completely and utterly wrong, since a) the article was never deleted, so it can not be a G4 candidate; and b) the article had no BLP concerns justifying such a deletion, it was a neutral, factual, and reliably sourced article. Can someone uninvolved please undo the deletion and trout Jonathunder? Fram (talk) 07:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me; it looks like I was referring to comments by Murry1975. I must have looked at the keep vote below "per sources indicated above by Fram and Murry1975" and gotten confused. --BDD (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse or if one wishes to be exceedingly technical, overturn to delete and then create the redirect, which is what it is right now. Consensus clearly favored deletion, and it is quite curious (and by "curious" I mean "hysterically hypocritical") for anyone to call for an 'overturn and keep', as this is something that certain parties wouldn't dream of if the article was 3-to-1 in favor of retention. Why is consensus only respected when it aligns with one's wiki-worldview, I wonder. Tarc (talk) 13:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - per DGG, Jclemens, S Marshall, etc. My own thoughts: Fram's 07:06, 11 September 2013 posting of 17 references where "these are only the ones where she is actually in the title of the article" clearly rebutted the prior AfD arguments asserting that the topic does not meet GNG. Almost none of the prior delete-as-not-meeting GNG posters addressed Fram's references. GNG is only a guideline and the AfD participants after Fram's post (and some before) focused on BLP policy reason to delete. Consensus after Fram's post seem to be that GNG guideline is met (or there was little opposition to that position), but delete per BLP policy reasons. That consensus is only a partial does not represent the entire discussion consensus, so more discussion probably is needed directly on BLP policy (particularly since the close was not based on BLP policy). The arguments for meeting GNG were very strong - 17 references where "these are only the ones where she is actually in the title of the article" means that there is much more content out there where her name is not in the title. The assertion that her biography has to qualify as a politician fails to take into account all of what the source material wrote about. The strong keep per GNG arguments were not rebutted, so I would overturn the close in that regard since it appeared to be based on delete per notability guideline and a misunderstanding of Fram's post. I think it reasonable to flesh out the BLP policy more. I suggest relisting anew at AfD, indicating that Wikipedia:Notability has been met and that discussion should center on whether the article should be kept based on BLP or other policy. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You realize that the sources required must be significant and non-routine coverage. Thus, local coverage of someone, without more non-local coverage, definitely does not meet GNG. Secondly, BLP1E may apply here, in that she would only be notable for one run, although I've not looked that far into her life to make that determination. ~Charmlet-talk-20:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You do need to read Fram's sources, Charmlet, which Jreferee has done and you (I respectfully suggest) have not. If you had you would not be suggesting that the coverage is "routine", nor that there's only one event. This lady's been plastered all over the Alaska papers at intervals since about 1992 having been involved in public arguments, assault, affray and other disorderly conduct leading to assorted civil and criminal actions that have repeatedly made the news.—S MarshallT/C20:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The significant and non-routine views you state are not listed in WP:GNG. In the AfD, Cyclopia identified Fram's list of references as meeting significant. Tarc mentioned 'routine' in the AfD in the context of deleting based on BLP policy, not GNG guideline. BLP1E or other policy reason to delete does not apply since that is not the basis for the close. -- Jreferee (talk) 10:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - DRV is not for re-evaluating sources and coming up with new keep/delete rationales, it is for analyzing the consensus in the original discussion and determining if the original closer came to the correct conclusion. In this case, 75% of the editors who contributed to the discussion expressed their opinion that it should be deleted or redirected. While AfD is certainly not just about counting votes, this large majority must be taken into consideration at some level. The only way this could have closed as anything other than "Delete" is if the keep voters' rationales were mind-blowingly more coherent and policy-based than the other voters. That wasn't the case here. The 8 keep voters brought some sources, the 24 delete/redirect voters said "meh", discussion over.
This AfD technically should have closed as Delete, but the closer made a very pragmatic and obvious decision to make it a redirect (which would have happened anyway). Since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, this is not problematic in the least, and I am flabbergasted by some editors' opinions that this closure represents an "outrageous misuse of policy". ‑Scottywong| gab _21:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only way this could have closed as anything other than "Delete" is if the keep voters' rationales were mind-blowingly more coherent and policy-based than the other voters. - Well, that was exactly the case. The sources brought by Fram basically killed all the delete !votes arguments, and the ones arguing for deletion after Fram comment simply ignored them. --cyclopiaspeak!14:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I am not an expert on Wikipedia but it looks like my name both "Theresa Obermeyer" and "Theresa Nangle Obermeyer" both are only about the U.S. Senate Race 1996. That is ridiculous. The campaign was 17 years ago. Ted Stevens left the U.S. Senate in 2008 and died in 2010. Why have you posted information about the U.S. Senate Race 1996 when anyone types my name? If that is the way you want to put my name on Wikipedia, I would like it taken off completely or deleted. A short vita follows.
161 Words
THERESA NANGLE OBERMEYER, Ph.D., has held Alaska Type A Teaching Certificate since 1979 and Alaska Real Estate Broker’s License since 1979. She received her Ph.D. from St. Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri 1975 and her Master of Education 1970 from the same institution. She majored in Political Science and minored in History, English, and Education at Maryville University from which she graduated 1967, St. Louis, Missouri. She graduated from Villa Duchesne High School, 1963. Dr. Obermeyer held public office on Anchorage School Board 1990-94 and prior to that taught at McLaughlin High School 1984-90. She was her Party's Nominee to U.S. Senate 1996. She has been a college administrator at four colleges in three states including Lindenwood University, Loyola University Maryland, St. Louis Community College at Florissant Valley, and University of Alaska. She taught Introduction to Sociology at Chapman University Fort Richardson/Elemndorf part-time 1981-1993. She was a Fulbright Fellow twice to India 1974 and to Jordan 1977. She is married with four adult children.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
[text removed]
If Wikipedia is unwilling to investigate the above, please take “Theresa Obermeyer” and “Theresa Nangle Obermeyer” off Wikipedia.
This not was already copied into this discussion in the collapsed section above. Rather than delete it as a duplicate, I've collapsed this one too but there probably isn't much value in having multiple copies of the same message in the same discussion. Stalwart11103:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as I'm concerned with the closers quickness in discounting local sources. I'm not sure what the best outcome is, but there are some flaws in how it was closed, which is the issue before us. Relist, restart, reclose or re-something. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER23:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – There were 8 total "keeps" made. One, by RadioKAOS, was based on personally knowing the subject and being of the expressed opinion that she's, well, see for yourself. I don't think there's any dispute about anything being wrong with disregarding that one. One, by Murry1975, was based on books and searches that Maunus determined consisted of lists of candidates and mentions of an entirely different person altogether. Two, by cyclopia and 24.151.116.25, said to keep per Murry1975 (inaccurate citing) and Fram (below) without any further expounding providing their own reasoning. Of the remaining four, three, Beyond My Ken (the opener of this review), Dawn Bard, and DGG, argue based on the automatic inherent notability of Senate candidates from one of the two main parties. (Dawn Bard mostly bases their keep on disagreeing with the subject's request to delete the page, but uses the Senate argument as the reason to not delete anyway.) The final one, Fram, also mentions the election as notable, but cites coverage in local Anchorage newspapers.
So, I see two questions here. First, are all major party Senate candidates notable simply by virtue that they've been one, even if they were just placeholder candidates no one expected to actually have a chance of winning? Consensus seemed to be that no, they are not, and BDD's above (18:18, 21 September 2013) argument that they should not be per WP:POLITICIAN and WP:POLOUTCOMES is something that I agree with. The second is, is a local politician getting local coverage in Anchorage significantly notable? Consensus appeared to be that it is not, even after Fram posted the Anchorage news links.
Since most of the case for keeping was based on inherent Senate candidate notability, and consensus rejected that, I don't have a problem with the closing admin's decision. Egsan Bacon (talk) 05:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep. Uncritical application of POLOUTCOMES to major-part US Senate nominees is inappropriate; it is the exception, not the rule, for such nominees, not to receive national press coverage, and there is, for example, NY Times coverage [6][7][8]. Amd Jonathunder's unilateral reversal of the AFD close, spuriously deleting under G4 and article that had never been previously deleted, is plainly an abuse of administrative authority. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The only other possible option is delete; she clearly doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN and even disregarding that many of the Keep votes are incredibly weak. Much as, having read the article, I understand that the subject wants it deleted for reasons that aren't compatible with Wikipedia ideals, I simply can't see how that discussion could default to keep. Not to mention that Wikipedia shouldn't be hosting an article which has, in its lede, the sentence "Obermeyer is known in Alaska for her public advocacy on behalf of her husband, Tom Obermeyer, who has failed the Alaska Bar examination thirty-four times." You couldn't get much more of an admission of non-notability than that. Black Kite (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC) Black Kite (talk) 21:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The keep !votes largely argued that she meets the GNG (which she does by a country mile). Given that WP:POLITICIAN defers to the GNG (see WP:BASIC) I'd say any delete !vote based on POLITICIAN is incredibly weak while the keep !votes were well grounded in policy. Hobit (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't think it's a coatrack for negative comments against her husband, nor that it's basically an article about someone who is only notable for losing a political race yet feels it necessary to point out her jail sentence in the lede as well? It serves no other encycopedic purpose. Get rid of those two sentences and, well, it's a rather pointless stub, but at least it wouldn't be an obnoxious stub. Black Kite (talk) 12:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you argued the keep !votes were weak and argued for WP:POLITICIAN indicating we should delete. I disagreed with both of those statements as they seem factually incorrect. Which is all I said. Your claim that we'd be left with a pointless stub implies you've not read the sources. There does seem to be plenty of in depth coverage.
To address your other points, yes it was a COATRACK but that is fixable by editing. And there are plenty of in-depth sources covering her. She meets our notability requirements by a wide margin. The only even vaguely policy-based reason for deletion is BLPDELELTE and I think that's a stretch. It's a stretch that sadly got wide consensus, but a stretch non-the-less. Hobit (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the closing editor is certainly involved at this point, what is the point of this objection? We could close the DRV and re-open it, but that seems extremely bureaucratic. Hobit (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote above, I am not an expert on Wikipedia. I am one person. I cannot believe that so many comments have been written about my name, "Theresa Obermeyer" and "Theresa Nangle Obermeyer." I truly do not want nor do I deserve so much attention. My name/s are still redirected to:”United States Senate Election in Alaska 1996” which has been posted like this for about two weeks. Why? I am not a politician nor am I a public figure. I have not run for public office for almost a decade. It is ridiculous that my name is only ”United States Senate Election in Alaska 1996.” As I wrote above, the campaign was 17 years ago. Ted Stevens left the U.S. Senate in 2008 and died in 2010. If that is the way Wikipedia wants to discuss "my good name," please delete my name completely. I sincerely do not understand why my name was posted on Wikipedia at all. The current redirection to "United States Senate Election in Alaska 1996" harms me professionally. It is as though that is the only thing I have ever done in my life. Ridiculous! Please delete my name from Wikipedia completely.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobermeyer (talk • contribs) 21:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Tobermeyer: Can you explain how the redirect to "United States Senate Election in Alaska 1996" harms you professionally? A simply google search for your name reveals many sites that discuss your previous political career. It's not exactly a secret. ‑Scottywong| converse _00:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tobermeyer, while we appreciate and listen to your comments, please notice that Wikipedia takes editorial decisions indepedently from the subjects of their articles. Also, you have been a public figure, and you intentionally worked to be one, at least in the past. --cyclopiaspeak!09:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Keep - Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC comfortably. Whether she meets a specific project guideline is irrelevant when GNG is met. WP:COATRACK concerns could easily be fixed by editing; WP:TNT is far from appropriate here. The subject of the article cannot seem to make their mind up whether they want the article or not; so I'm afraid we'll have to discount whatever wish they have at present, simply due to inconsistency. BDD's failure to provide a rationale for closing on such a contentious AfD is a failing on their part that I hope they'll learn from. If we're into discounting keep !votes, let's look at the deletes: Kumioko's isn't policy based (only looks at the article and nowhere else), Shii's doesn't make sense (there is a claim of notability), TenOfAllTrades doesn't even attempt to use anything policy based, and the simple fact is that a lot of the votes are flat-out wrong; asserting she failed WP:POLITICIAN whilst meeting WP:GNG. At best, this is a no consensus AfD. Certainly not a !keep or !delete (or, by extension, redirect) result. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)08:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – From the closing comments of the AfD:
It's natural that the Anchorage press would give coverage to an Anchorage school board member, but keeping on this basis would, frankly, set a terrible precedent.
Automatically assmuing that the Anchorage School Board is a politically insignificant body, just because a lot of school boards elsewhere are politically insignificant, sets a terrible precedent. It's almost to suggest that we're not building an encyclopedia so much as we're building a real-life version of Idiocracy.
I keep seeing mentions of "major party candidate". Actually, in 1996, she was a major party NOMINEE. That meant that she had to have won an election first, even if it was a primary election rather than a general election. In fact, she won that primary election over six challengers. Judging from the list of names, however, one could assume that she possessed a sturdier tin foil hat than the others did.
Re: the sources Fram presented: ignored here is the fact that Fram stated upfront that he picked only one particular source out of many possible sources, even if it was one likely to produce that many hits. It's long troubled me that "consensus" seems to be that insignificant coverage in national media carries far more weight than significant coverage in local media. It might go far in explaining why garbage pop-culture content exists on Wikipedia to absolute excess, while topics far more relevant to an encyclopedia go completely uncovered. It's also troubling how WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is constantly held out as a means to excuse this.
In response to BDD's comments:
I'm only half joking when I say that in the 90s, there was only one major party in Alaska.
Sheila Toomey of the Anchorage Daily News, in a long-running humor/gossip column called "Alaska Ear", contends that Alaska does have a two-party system: BP and ConocoPhillips. She's only half-joking, too. Back to serious stuff, while there is some truth to what BDD says, it doesn't adequately explain how Tony Knowles, a pillar of the Democratic Party in Alaska for decades, was governor of the state for the majority of the 1990s. Many political insiders will explain that Jack Coghill was nothing more than a spoiler, ignoring that the events of the previous gubernatorial election (in particular, Coghill's split with Arliss Sturgulewski and his subsequently becoming Wally Hickel's running mate instead) meant that a great many of Coghill's supporters weren't about to vote for Jim Campbell even if the only choice they had was between Campbell and Knowles.
Look at {{Democratic Alaska Senatorial nominees}}. Besides governors and elected Senators, there are three blue links: a speaker of the state legislature, Scott McAdams (who received extensive coverage in a high-profile race), and Obermeyer.
Since I have some expertise in this area, let's break this down, excluding "governors and elected Senators":
Wendell Kay – Kay is mentioned as a speaker of the Alaska House. It should be pointed out that Kay was actually speaker of the territorial House. Alaska celebrated what it called the centennial of the legislature this year (see here). Additionally, the legislature has a roster of members (see here), first published in 1966 and last updated in 2012, which contains both the territorial and state legislature. In other words, they are viewed within Alaska as being equals. This fact, however, doesn't appear to faze many Wikipedia editors, who insist that territorial and state legislatures MUST be treated as strictly separate entities. Regardless, like Edgar Paul Boyko, Kay was chiefly notable as a lawyer rather than for any political office he held or ran for.
Gene Guess – Guess was speaker of the state House, and therefore rather notable. Additionally, the law firm he co-founded still bears his name, even though he died in 1975. I realize this is somewhat common with law firms, and may not translate very well to notability as understood on Wikipedia.
Don Hobbs – Hobbs truly was a ringer. However, "but wait, there's more!" Nicholas Lemann wrote a rather lengthy article entitled "The Great Alaska Feud", which was published in the Washington Post on September 30, 1979. It was centered on the feud between Ted Stevens and Mike Gravel, mostly around their differences on what became the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act and acrimony from Stevens related to the plane crash on December 4, 1978 which killed his wife. The actual piece may be hard to find online, but I believe Dermot Cole's book North To The Future can be found on Google Books, which devotes a chapter to rehashing it. Basically, Lemann contends that Hobbs was a front for Gravel's campaign to rid Stevens from office, or at the very least send him a message. I followed the 1978 campaign intensely, despite being rather young at the time. From what I recall, Hobbs wasn't really much of a factor. Add to that the fact that the political establishment in Alaska was pretty firmly behind Stevens, Jay Hammond and Don Young and equally as firmly opposed to Gravel by that point, mostly because of Gravel's reputation as a grand-stander.
John Havelock – Was attorney general during the second governorship of William A. Egan. I would say he's notable. He was also a co-founder of the aforementioned law firm (originally known as Ely, Guess, Rudd & Havelock, now known as Guess & Rudd – BTW, "Rudd" was Joseph Rudd, who also died in the aforementioned plane crash). He was active in politics as recently as the 2012 election.
Michael Beasley, Frank Vondersaar and Joe Sonneman can truly be discounted, as they are effectively Mini-Mes to Obermeyer: people who run for office incessantly to pursue conspiracy theories or personal grudges.
Clark Gruening – Notable, but mainly because he served two terms in the state House during the 1970s, not because he was a U.S. Senate nominee. Gravel's rapid decline in popularity by that point meant a high likelihood of him losing anyway, regardless of who his opponent was. In fact, at the 1980 Republican state convention, discussion of who would challenge Gravel was eclipsed only by discussion of the attempted takeover of the party by a Moral Majority faction led by Jerry Prevo. Ray Metcalfe would much later contend that Prevo was nothing more than a front for Jerry Falwell and his alleged personal interest in the Alaskan political scene, but I have doubts about the reliability of such a statement, especially given the source.
Glenn Olds – Quite notable. A decade prior to his running for Senate, Olds was the chief architect behind saving Alaska Methodist University from extinction, creating the present-day Alaska Pacific University. He also served as commissioner of the Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that cabinet officers were inherently notable, even on a state level. While information is scarce, indications are that Olds was also a figure of note in the Kent State shootings. Even if he wasn't, I figure that his stint as that university's president is yet another indication of notability aside from his being a Senate nominee.
Tony Smith – Also served as commissioner of Commerce and Economic Development, under Hickel's predecessor Steve Cowper. Also held various other positions of equal significance in state government, was involved in Anchorage's 1992 Winter Olympics bid, and was a co-founder of Alaska Business Monthly, a major publication in Alaska.
Finally, we come to Scott McAdams. If the description of McAdams as having "received extensive coverage in a high-profile race" isn't systemic bias, then I don't know what is, especially when placed into the context of claims that the previously-mentioned names must be non-notable due to redlinked entries. I publicly supported and voted for McAdams. Regardless, the simple fact of the matter is that he became a non-factor in the race the instant Lisa Murkowski announced her write-in campaign. Also consider:
There were obvious WP:COI issues with that article. User:Heather Handyside was his campaign manager, and continued to work on the page even after the election, which is important because it's obvious that the Democratic Party is continuing to groom him for future runs for higher office.
Category:Mayors of Sitka, Alaska was created the day after McAdams won the nomination against mostly non-existent opposition. Having such a category would imply inherent notability on the part of those holding the office, correct? There are a great many notable individuals who have served as mayor of Sitka (dating back to the 1867–1873 "provisional city government", which included John Henry Kinkead amongst its mayors), even though the majority of them lack articles. Does that make the office itself notable? One would have developed that impression by the reaction of the Wikipedia community to the nomination of McAdams. I might wish to call bullshit, however. In fact, I would go so far as to say that being a member of the Anchorage School Board is far more politically significant than being mayor of Sitka. Evidently, we're hung up on job titles here inasfar as determining notability, in that mayors are assumed notable but school board members aren't. If you look at the first three decades of Anchorage's existence, you will find that as a company town for the Alaska Railroad, it was the general manager of the railroad who really ran the town. The mayor was merely a figurehead. Bill Stolt was arguably the first mayor of Anchorage to take any sort of active role in the community's affairs.
I do have a lot more to say, but time to take a break for now. Needless to say, if you find this to be excessive, keep in mind that I have lost count of the number of times that I have read a declaration of non-notability on Wikipedia, when the real issue was one of WP:WTAF. When "even Ray Charles can see" the notability of the subject, it's as if people are out to prove me right when I get to harping on how the three monkeys syndrome is in effect in spades (in particular, see the reference in that article to "feigning ignorance"). RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 01:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Overturn and unprotect to allow fresh article creation. (Is semi-protection appropriate instead? I expect unnecessary given the time that has passed, and the intended fresh article stub.)
OpenCart is an open source e-commerce web application whose article was deleted five times between November 8, 2006 and April 28, 2010. The article was fully protected after the fifth deletion. The two deletion discussions from 2009 are here and here. The other three deletions appear to be speedy deletions.
I have not seen the older article(s) that were deleted but since protection in 2010 OpenCart has gained notability, and I believe full protection is no longer appropriate. I made a fresh article stub User:OldEcomGuru/OpenCart_article and Kww suggested I raise it here at WP:DRV.
(Just for the record - I am NOT OpenCartGuru/Qphoria, who I mention in the article.)
The two main sources I found after a basic search have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy - they are not press releases. This is even though the article revision I wrote so far, can be viewed as being just a first draft stub. They however should prove notability enough to allow recreation of the article. (The Secunia references include links to other places where the vulnerabilities are discussed, and could be a classed as a third source, i.e. as OpenCart is notable enough since 2010 for security researchers to care about it.)
Proving notability under the usual criteria is a general issue with these shopping cart systems (see the articles on PrestaShop and Magento for example); many are notable but proving it can take some time to find the sources. Those two articles for example clearly have not received the same scrutiny from editors yet - and they should (I for one intend to contribute).
Comment Notability is indeed hard to prove for b-to-b software in general. For consumer software we can generally find good substantial reviews (not just mentions in a joint review) from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, that are not just repeats of the company's PR, but they're much rare or at least much less accessible here. Of the references in your draft article the only one seems to be this one. We'd normally ask for more than one, but this is a start. (I personally do not know the reliability of the source or the reviewer.) DGG ( talk ) 17:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CommentAs an aside, perhaps number of downloads, from a fairly impartial site, such as can be found for WordPress plugins on wordpress.org, can be used as additional criteria on notability.BuiltWith Trends comes closest. They collate based on the top million sites from Quantcast, and other sources. I've started adding them to the various shopping cart systems including to my OpenCart draft article; OpenCart is notable enough that they track it. OldEcomGuru (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Final comment of the day from me... if the community consensus is to not unprotect in this case, we should nominate PrestaShop (and similiar ones) for AFD in the same way; but improving them *all* seems a better option. These all are notable web applications within the shopping cart sphere. I am spending time on OpenCart first because I am surprised it is still protected; for example it is included in the comparison matrices in other articles and has been added back there at various times by various editors (seem not to be sock puppets of the developers of OpenCart) and I intend to follow WP:WTAF. I am taking this also as a learning experience on what it takes to write an acceptable article. OldEcomGuru (talk) 22:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite right about PrestaShop--unless some reviews can be found , it's likely headed for afd. In the past we've negligently not deleted many such articles, and ought to remove them; and we certainly don't need to add to their number. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Perry Belcher – I think we need to see a draft before we can even start to contemplate this. Controversial characters who have minal coverage are extremely difficult to write up without breaching BLP and we won't host content that is entirely negative. – SpartazHumbug!20:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Comment We certainly can't write an article about him based primarily on the criminal proceedings--for something relatively minor this would be a BLP violation. (I deleted in 2008 an attack page describing in great detail the activities leading to that conviction ) There's a version not mentioning them ; I copied it temporarily to talk:Perry Belcher. I checked the books, and none of them are even on Worldcat, which is a minimum requirement for even thinking about the possibility of notability for an author. DGG ( talk ) 18:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Belcher was a very well-known figure in social media (circa 2008-2011) and had a group of very vocal followers (and customers) who think he's brilliant and equally vocal critics who call him a fraud. He had (has?) an internet marketing firm and was a polarizing figure. Most people would not know who he was but those who do know of him definitely have a strong opinion. Right now, he is out of the limelight (seemingly by choice) but I can see this article being reestablished if Belcher has another comeback. He's the kind of guy that seems to have 9 lives. Not notable now but do not salt. LizRead!Talk!21:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
article meets WP:MUSICBIO #11: Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. Her single "Want It All" is in rotation on the following commercial radio stations in the US via reliable tracking source Mediabase
I'm not sure how to confirm the claim of meeting MUSICBIO#11. That said, I can't find anything that looks like a reliable source other than maybe FrostClick. Hobit (talk) 03:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Dating Guy – . We appear to have new sources but lack a clear consensus on whether this is enough. Historically we would expect new sources to be discussed at AFD but given the amount of time and effort spent on this article I'd be leery of recreating this unless the outcome is much clearer. On that basis I'm going to close this as userfy on request to work up the new sources. Whether the article then gets brought to DRV for review or is moved to mainspace with the prospect of a further AFD I think can be left to editorial discretion depending on how the draft looks. – SpartazHumbug!20:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Attention: scroll down to "Concise summary" below to see a quickly summarized version of these arguments.
Attention (for closing administrator): I have left a "Note for closing administrator" below.
Per WP:DRV: "Deletion Review may be used: 3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;" this is the case here. I have found 4 additional WP:RS and an additional link for an old one, bringing the total to 7, as follows:
This feels like a lot of reprinted press releases and blogs. The last one is actually somewhat promising (a real, if short, review) if you can show that the blog author is somehow an expert in media. You hint at that but don't provide evidence. At the moment, I'm fascinated that this show somehow didn't get reviews in the mainstream press, or any clearly reliable press. Even if it was horrible, it should have gotten something. There is coverage at [24] which may well count toward WP:N as might [25] (both are well-respected comic sources, certainly reliable in their area). Hobit (talk) 11:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only ones that could reasonably be "reprinted press releases" are the ones from AWN. The others are clearly original writing, at least as far as I see. Also, there are no "blogs" here, again at least as far as I can tell - I clearly pointed out that the last one is actually by someone with significant credentials according to the respective list. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 11:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[26] is plainly a self-published blog. The only thing it has going for it is that the author sometimes writes opinion pieces for more respected media outlets. Per WP:SPS the only way this could qualify as a reliable source is if the author is an "established expert" in the field, and it seems a very shaky thing to base notability on. Hut 8.517:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For a start I don't think the author of that piece qualifies as an "established expert". He's a journalist who writes opinion pieces for news organisations, sometimes on the subject of media. If he was an academic or something you might have a point, but he isn't. Our articles are supposed to be based on reliable sources. Self-published and questionable sources can sometimes be used in some circumstances, but proposing to base an article on one is another thing entirely. Hut 8.520:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't made a valid argument as to why he doesn't qualify as an "established expert". If the term meant "academic", then do you not think it would simply state that instead? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't made any sort of argument as to why he should qualify as an "established expert", and the burden of proof is on you. The term doesn't mean "academic", and I never said it did. I gave academics as an example of someone who would likely qualify as an expert. Being a journalist who sometimes writes about Canadian media doesn't make you an expert on Canadian TV though, and I can't see any other reason to think this person is an expert. Hut 8.521:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Being a journalist who sometimes writes about Canadian media doesn't make you an expert on Canadian TV" - this is the statement which I take issue with. Do you have any evidence that this is the case? As far as I am aware, Wikipedia policy makes no such assertion. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the burden of proof is on you. You are the one who wants the article restored, you are the one claiming this is a reliable source, and you are the one who needs to demonstrate that this person is an established expert. What I have seen so far does not remotely convince me that this is the case. Hut 8.523:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How can someone possibly "convince" someone else of something like that? It's obviously a judgement call in the end. In any case, though, I would ask that you evaluate the merits of permitting restoration on the basis of all the potential sources (both old and new), including those another user mentioned above, and not just one. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 03:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that something involves judgement doesn't mean you can't convince someone of it. I base my judgement on the evidence I have seen. If you show me evidence of this person's expertise I may change my mind. Hut 8.509:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: see, this is why Wikipedia has such a massive problem with WP:Systemic bias. World media is very US-centric, and Internet media even more so. I can practically guarantee that if absolutely everything about this show was the same except that it happened to be made in association with a US channel, this article wouldn't have been deleted even once. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually. Popular culture in an English-speaking developed country is exactly the kind of thing where there ought to be plenty of sources available, if they exist. Hut 8.520:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're about to fall into a trap - arguing with someone who's researched the topic in question extensively, and almost certainly far more than you have. Do you really want to proceed, or are you going to back out before it's too late? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to note that I did perhaps get a bit snappy in the comment above, but that aspect of the comment was meant to be more humorous than anything else. It wasn't meant as a threat but as a simple statement of fact - I really do know so much about this topic that I think it's pointless to try to argue with me about it.Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If asking you for your evidence is "arguing", or "falling into a trap", then there's no need to threaten Hut 8.5. I'll be your Huckleberry.—S MarshallT/C21:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's one thing to discuss a legitimate point. It's quite another to somehow attempt to equate the media reach of a population of around 300 million with that of one of about 30 million in a clear attempt to continue the systemic bias that pervades Wikipedia (which also favours the UK, by the way). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I mostly write is biographies of French and German people, so I do understand the concern about systemic bias, and I sympathise. Nevertheless, when you're asked for your sources on Wikipedia, the most appropriate response is to list your sources. Bristling and posturing is a suboptimal alternative.
With that said my personal perspective is that DRV isn't the article police. This is not AfD and our role is not to conduct a detailed analysis of the sources. I feel that our role is to check that there really are new sources (yup!) and that this isn't some kind of attempted end run around a previous consensus or any other procedural diddle. It's not: it's a good faith request to revisit an old discussion. Therefore my position is permit restoration, without prejudice to a subsequent AfD, and with an appended request that Dogmaticeclectic agrees to climb down a little, engage in a discussion about sources in a collegial way, and generally act like someone we can work with.—S MarshallT/C22:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - ordinarily I'd be all for recreation where there is a good-faith attempt to start a new article on the basis of new sources. But this has been to AFD twice (deleted both times) and at DRV three times (though one was to request recreation as a redirect). In total, it has been deleted 8 times in 4 years. S Marshall is right about the purpose of DRV, but what is there to discuss if you have declared all sources "unquestionable"? And when an editor questioned some, you threatened him. Most of the sources look to have been published before the first AFD, and certainly before the second. Neither the delete crowd (per WP:BEFORE) nor the keep crowd managed to find them? Stalwart11123:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's part of the reason why I got a bit snappy: "the delete crowd" didn't bother to try to find more sources because it doesn't want this article here. It's a simple fact. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 02:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, the majority of these sources were not in fact present in any of the previous deletion discussions. I made this quite clear above and would thus ask if you could consider taking the side of permitting restoration. I really think this could be a viable article if it actually got the chance to flourish. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 03:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then that's an issue. WP:BEFORE is required and if we're deleting something (twice!) when potential sources are available then that suggests there have been a lapse in the way the deletion process is supposed to operate. You can still have a discussion about the validity of the sources but the fact that they haven't been considered concerns me. I'm still mulling over a view on this but as I said initially, I would ordinarily favour recreation, were it not for the additional circumstances. Stalwart11105:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming there was in fact "a lapse in the way the deletion process is supposed to operate [sic]", is that not an additional argument for permitting restoration? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 05:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, but we're talking about overturning (effectively) 6 administrative decisions and 2 community decisions by consensus. I'm not opposed to recreation, but perhaps a good user-space draft would be the way to go? Stalwart11106:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the old revisions of the article should be moved into my userspace, where I can clean them up using the sources above. If you're in favour of this approach, I would ask that you formally state this. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 06:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to point out that neither the number of previous deletions nor WP:BEFORE are valid arguments to use in deletion discussions - each deletion should or should not be performed strictly on the merits, or lack thereof, of the evidence presented in the respective discussion. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 03:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, there wasn't really a "keep crowd" - only one other user in each discussion expressed support for keeping the article, and both of these supporters' positions were harshly criticized by the "delete crowd", showing the obvious deletionist bias present in both discussions. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 03:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think WP:BEFORE is a perfectly valid point of discussion and I would think you'd be in favour of discussing it given it raises concerns about both original AFD nominations. I also don't think it's invalid to point out that an article has been deleted 8 times (by consensus twice) because it is those administrative decisions and consensus that you are seeking to overturn here. But WP:BURDEN is also a valid point of discussion here, given both parties' inability to find the sources you've now presented above. If, having participated in both discussions, you have now managed to find sources you were unable to find the first two times, I don't see anything wrong with you being allowed to present them. But part of the issue here is the presentation, not the content. There's no need for threats or "snappiness", especially given the almost equal failures of BEFORE and BURDEN. Oh, and I would be careful about describing good-faith consensus as "deletionist bias" especially given the fairly comprehensive analysis of sources that took place during the last AFD. Stalwart11105:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really evidence of "deletionist bias", just someone's opinion that the article (as it was at that point in time) should be deleted. You don't need to prove "bias" here (and you won't, anyway, with that sort of "evidence") and you're not asking for a review of either AFD - just permission to recreate. And if we're going to quote, let's quote the rest - "...and without any revelations of significant, published discussion there is no notability". Again, not really "bias" there - just regular AFD stuff. Stalwart11106:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review It was a protected redirect to Marblemedia. but the versions before the redirect were deleted. I restored the history, but it remains protected from editing. If the decision is not to relist or restore, the situation should be returned to the prior one. DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Permit userfication in advance of formal recreation, per the discussion above. I'd like to see a good quality draft before overturning so many deletion decisions. Stalwart11106:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted I don't see anything here that warrants reopening the issue. The sources listed above are the same kind of thing that was rejected during the AfD: TV listings, a self-published blog, an extremely brief interview with someone involved in the production of the film and several pages that look suspiciously like press releases. This page has already been through AfD twice, the second time because an editor thought they had addressed the issues from the first AfD (only to be told resoundingly that this was not the case). Given this I can't support restoration based on these sources. Userfication won't help, as the issue is with the sources cited in the article rather than the wording. One point which isn't mentioned enough in these discussions is that AfD participants are expected to look for sources that aren't actually present in the article, and participants don't typically list all the sources they found and discounted in this way. The sources listed above aren't "new" - they existed at the time of the last AfD and could have been found by any participant who looked. It is therefore quite possible that these sources were already inspected and rejected by the AfD participants. Hut 8.509:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're clearly a deletionist and are thus unlikely to be swayed to change your mind about this, but I've tried to do so below anyways.
However, I take issue with several things you wrote above: you ignored the pre-existing sources, particularly the entire article about the show in a widely-circulated newspaper, as well as the review on a website for which I have demonstrated notability. You also provide no evidence whatsoever for this claim: "It is therefore quite possible that these sources were already inspected and rejected by the AfD participants." I, on the other hand, have explained why I think the opposite occurred. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. People here are trying to be reasonable and civil with you, and you should do the same. Sources which were in the article at the time of deletion are not going to get you anywhere here, as the AfD considered and rejected them. Being a Canadian journalist and blogger, even a notable or award-winning blogger, does not make you an "established expert" on the subject of Canadian TV. Several of the commenters in the AfD indicate they looked for additional sources and rejected those they found, and if they were doing their job properly they should have done this anyway. Your "explanation" of why they may not have found these sources is nothing more than an ill-considered accusation of bad faith. Hut 8.511:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no. Quantity of sources has nothing to do with it. Quality of sources is what matters. Notability requires significant coverage in third-party reliable sources, the sources were rejected because they weren't independent, weren't reliable or didn't constitute significant coverage. You can demonstrate notability with one source, if it's good enough. Hut 8.513:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a comment made by one person who is in fact noting that one source is not of sufficient quality to demonstrate notability (specifically that it's too brief and is written from an in-universe perspective). And there's no need to shout about everything.Hut 8.515:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By twisting the meaning of another user's comment into something completely different than the obvious original intent, you have crossed the line from legitimate discussion into trolling. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"It is increasingly clear to me that I won't be able to have such a discussion with you." Well, I suppose it's a start that we at least agreed upon something. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional evidence: for the "blog" source, besides the fact that the person behind the blog also writes for a number of conventional media sources (Metro, The Huffington Post, and CBC Radio One, as noted above), I have found evidence that the blog itself is notable - [27] states the following: "FFWD Magazine readers have named Mike’s Bloggity Blog Calgary’s Best Blog for the past three years. And in 2012, Tourism Calgary awarded Mike the coveted White Hat Award, for his contribution to the Media in Calgary." Note that FFWD Magazine is notable enough in itself to have a Wikipedia article, and Tourism Calgary is obviously notable as a government agency. Additionally, the fact that this blog has received a significant number of awards (others are mentioned on that page too) speaks for itself. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if this isn't convincing enough for this source, I'm not sure what I could even theoretically add - I've demonstrated the reliability of both the blogger and the blog as sources. An "established expert" is a nebulous term which I think is in any case satisfied by the fact that the blogger writes for the conventional media sources previously mentioned. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think this meets WP:N given Dogmaticeclectic's sources (yes the blog is an RS, and so is [28] for example) and the ones I found above. Allow recreation with no prejudice against a new AfD though I really am not fond of the sourcing (minimal coverage of the show itself, just the business of making the show, threats of lawsuits etc.) The new sources are enough IMO to overcome the old AfD. Hobit (talk) 04:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This DRV is a review the 2nd AfD, which largely pointed to the sourcing used for the article as the problems: (i) whether enough source material exists to support the article and (ii) the sourcing used in the article. TV production chart from March 2008 is an early source of material for the animated 2009 to 2010 show (adventures of four friends looking for love). That was followed by a number of TV production charts and then some decent press releases such as [29][30]. Those and the show itself didn't seem to generate actual detailed subsequent news coverage of The Dating Guy. The next set of source material was The Dating Guy mentioned along with other things, e.g., "programs like Robot Chicken, The Dating Guy and Archer ...", "Cartoon Network's "Almost Naked Animals" and Teletoon's "The Dating Guy"). And that's were the source material has left off at. The material I reviewed probably is not enough source material - old or new - for the article as of this DRV. This brings us to the main issue raised at AfD2 - the sourcing used in the article. From the discussion in this DRV, I do not see that as being overcome. Link [6] above,[31] is characterized above as "unquestionably satisfies the criteria" of significant new information. However, it contains only two sentences on the Dating Guy, with only "dating misadventures of 20-something urban youths" being something that could be summarized into the Wikipedia article. That material is not significant and, since the article mentioned that the show was about "adventures of four friends looking for love", it is not entirely new to what was considered at the time of AfD2. Along with the problem of how things are being conveyed, it also is clear that, if the article is allowed to be recreated, it seems unlikely that the article could be developed through constructive discussion. Even if there were enough coverage to get just past WP:N, I do not think there is a good likelihood that an article on The Dating Guy could be developed to meet content policies when you take into account the multiple AfDs, DRVs, and the discussion in this DRV. -- Jreferee (talk) 11:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Concise summary: let's bring this discussion back to the basics. WP:GNG requires significant coverage in multiple, independent, and reliable sources. The links at [32] and [33] are already enough to satisfy this. Add the link at [34], as well as the snippets of coverage from the other links, and you can see that anyone who doesn't want this article restored doesn't want to follow Wikipedia policy. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 11:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note for closing administrator: since most opinions expressed above have been either in support of userification or outright restoration, with exactly half opting for the latter, I would like to note that I would strongly prefer direct restoration - perhaps other editors would be more likely to help work on the article then - but would definitely work to improve the article in the event of userification. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Article was updated with notable references. -- Dobro77 (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC) This was deleted based on the "view" of two people prior to the article being revised. The article had been revised and the references were put into the article were valid. Was the article even read by the editor who deleted it? Does two comments qualify for a deletion? I thought this was a group process. That is not a fair process. A lot of work went into revising the article with notable references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dobro77 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You should've commented in the AFD to state you had new things added. The closing administrator judges consensus, they don't cast a supervote. Post the links to reliable sources that give significant coverage to the person here so people know what you are talking about. DreamFocus23:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Thank you! I was under the impression that only administrators could comment on the AFD. Here are notable references that were added to the article prior to deletion. I feel they are valid references and the consensus was really only two administrators. Thank you for your help!:
RestoreComment (see my additional post below) - The AfD close was "commentators have shows that the referencing isn't up to par to meet our guidelines" and Dobro77's post above contains "notable references that were added to the article prior to deletion." The last comment to address the sources in the article was made 17:49, 20 August 2013. At that time, the article had 26 references. When the article was deleted, it had 30 references. Without knowing what they are, it is hard to say whether the 4 new references overcome "the referencing isn't up to par to meet our guidelines" close. Given the use in this DRV of the very referencing that resulted in the article being deleted, I do not think the 4 new references would overcome the reasons for deletion. -- Jreferee (talk) 10:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There were significant changes made to the article during the AfD that were not reviewed at AfD. Along with the above evidence that the AfD didn't unearth, restore seems appropriate. The biography was being written as a biography and there appears to have been an effort to limit the sourcing to reliable sources (and not fan based on-line webpages). Dobro77, you may want to use Template:Citation for each of the references in the restored article, get rid of CD Baby, YouTube videos, IMDb, and other Wikipedia articles (noted in AfD) as sourcing since those are red flags, and perhaps use less external links - see WP:EL - since using many external links in an article is a red flag. Also, consider intermixing his achievements within the career history write up since his achievements were part of his career. In general, I think you can improve the article to be a nice biography so long as you avoid some of the past pitfalls. -- Jreferee (talk) 10:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. All references to Youtube, IMDB, and other fan-based on line webpages had been deleted prior to the article being deleted. I can not locate the deleted article to do any template citation edits or go over the noted reference issue. Unfortunately I only saved an earlier version. Past Pitfalls and external link advice noted, Thank you, and thank you for your help in getting this restored.:* -- Dobro77 (talk)
Oppose - The list of articles above does nothing to show notability about the subject. Most are in fact simple listing of the subjects name in credits. A mention he performed a cameo, a listing in the credits for a show, etc. Others are articles where the subjects name is mentioned in passing. ie David Reo is performing, etc. None of them are articles about the subject theirself. 50.84.87.157 (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are newspaper references in the article. There are references from google books. Per below. Also links to visual television credits. Are newspaper references not a notable source? -- Dobro77 (talk)
Newspapers can be RS. However all the articles above have the same problem. None of them are articles about David Reo. They're his name mentioned in a list of tons of others who worked on a show episode, they're a routine David Reo is playing at a club announcement. Just having his name mentioned does not confer notability, there needs to be articles about David Reo, not about his band (I'm not sure of notability for it, but that's another subject from David Reo), not a mention in a routine credit line, not a mention in an promo piece written to promote an upcoming visit to a club, etc. We need articles on David Reo himself. He's done stuff that's great, we need articles to show us information about him. 50.84.87.157 (talk) 15:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finding very little in the way of reliable third party sources so we could actually write a decent encyclopedia article, rather than just a list of credits, do we have any of those? Remember the basic criteria is always non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the AfD close - I'm seeing some source material. Early source coverage shows that he produced The Seeds of Love with Tears for Fears in 1989. There's coverage of a David Bascombe in the Port Lincoln Times and his work with AXEL Stenross Maritime Museum. Not sure if it is the same person. Even with that information, it probably is not enough to put together a written biography article from Wikipedia reliable sources. AfD also concluded that there was not enough source material. David Bascombe would be aware of his own press coverage. With a variety of people already looking but not finding source material for the article, I think the only way an article could be created is if David Bascombe posted, at Wikipedia:Requested articles, links to Wikipedia reliable sources that discuss his life to allow someone else to write the article. Non-Wikipedia reliable source information on David Bascombe is here. -- Jreferee (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Since the deletion of the article in April 2013, the subject model has appeared as the lead actress of the Bollywood film Nasha, which released in July 2013. The reason for deletion noted by the closing admin User:King of Hearts at the AfD was WP:BLP1E. I request that the article should be undeleted based on this new information we have. Also i would like to point out that the article was actually kept post the 1st AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poonam Pandey where the admin User:Scottywong had kept the article for the subject being notable enough. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you taking the AfD from 5 months ago to DRV when the most recent deletion rationale (By DragonflySixtyseven) was based on the banned status of the creator? Jclemens (talk) 17:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not notice that rationale. If i had i would anyways have come here because i don't want that version to be restored. I want the version which was deleted after AfD to be restored. And the latest deletion is just a fault in our system where under CSD:G5 we tend to delete articles just because they are created by blocked/banned editors without gauging the article itself. Now, lets say i shouldn't be here. Then what other way do we have? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything wrong with taking it to DRV; often it is used to as a means for the community to approve recreation of an article which would otherwise get G4'd. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 03:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It means I'm in favour of an article being created in that space. I have no objection to restoring the old version as part of that process, but the old version will obviously have to be updated with the new information.—S MarshallT/C18:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes! Updation would be required. But that's just like any other article on wiki which isn't updated. I will update it when it's available. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Recreate the article. The first AFD got it right, Northamerica1000 finding ample coverage of her then, and not just for the strip tease bet. Click on a Google news search and you see her getting ample coverage in reliable sources. Less people noticed and participated in the second AFD. Anyone who participates in an AFD and doesn't take a moment to click the link at the top for Google news search, but still seeks to delete something, should be ignored. DreamFocus19:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Permit recreation - I imagine you'll get the most recent deleted version for the sake attribution but you can boldly edit it back to a preferred version. Seems like a good faith request on the basis of some new information and I appreciate the nominator bringing it here to allow community review. Stalwart11107:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Permit recreation - meaning you can write a new article and post it at Poonam Pandey. An old version of the biography essentially was reduced down to "She was born, did a few thing, and then did this." The history of the deleted article shows IPs and what appears to be new editors. Dharmadhyaksha your interest in the topic and hopefully a willingness to watch over the page would be welcome. I think it was appropriate that you posted your request at DRV. -- Jreferee (talk) 11:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Permit recreation: in addition, I oppose the previous deletion too. We deleted the article because in Wikipedia we don't know how to categorize these people. We still check a person's "occupation" to assess "notability". The category we need and what is applicable here — Pandey was a public figure. Claim to "run nude" or whatever she did, made her notable — that's it. Tito☸Dutta19:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Only four users participated in the AfD discussion, two voted for rename and two for merge. I, the writer of the article, was not active at Wikipedia back then and didn't have the opportunity to participate in the discussion.
The original title was "Saudi Arabia and terrorism" (it was moved by another user), and it contained materials about both the state and the people of the country. Moreover, the article was discussing massive Saudi funding for Wahhabism and Salafism, the ideology behind Islamic terrorism. So merging it into the state-sponsored terrorism article was not a good idea. In fact, only one-third of the article is about state-sponsored terrorism in particular (only the first paragraph of the article has been moved and preserved). I do agree that the article is not well-written, it looks like a bunch of different information that are just put together without being organized and written very well (I'm not good at writing English article), but we should tag it with a couple of templates in this case instead of merging/deleting it, the subject merits a separate entry IMO.
By the way, the article can be expanded more, as there are new materials about recent Saudi support of hard-line Islamic jihadists in Syrian civil war.[36][37] --Z14:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wants it unmerged, I should think. The thing is that there are good sources, but on the face of it, Spartaz has a point about WP:SYN there. We're dealing with an editorial judgment call that needs to be considered in the light of WP:SYNNOT, and the nominator cites new sources that the AfD didn't consider. I don't really like the idea of having an article with this title but the request for a discussion isn't an unreasonable one... I'll go with relist in the light of the new source.—S MarshallT/C19:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the nomination here in seeking recreation right now. The AfD is clear and convincing. Particularly clear and pertinent is MezzoMezzo 03:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC). I think there is no reasonable option as the next step other than expanding the section at State-sponsored_terrorism#Saudi_Arabia. Perform the merge. When doing so, I expect other interested editors will promptly contribute, especially with regard to a careful use of the sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as the most reasonable thing to do with the existing article. A proper article can and should be written, and split from the main article. But it has to be written in a spirit of NPOV, intended to inform, not to engage in propaganda. & the degree to which any of us might individually agree or disagree with the POV in the article under discussion is irrelevant; I think this can only be done by starting over.
As for procedure: If an AfD closes as a merge, it can be appealed here, just like any other AfD close. I think it is now generally accepted that a merge or redirect done as an AfD result has a greater standing than a mere editorial merge, because it's made as a consensus decision, and needs consensus to overturn, and del rev is one way of getting such consensus. Whatever is done at any deletion process can & should be appealed here. We are NOT BURO, and we don't go by technicalities. Procedure is intended to lead to good results, and whatever leads to good and fair consensus results is appropriate procedure, Refusing to hear an appeal because technicalities are not followed belongs in formal legal systems (and I think many of us might think they can be used wrongly and excessively even there, and are the survivors of primitive rules where legal formulae have to be said exactly, just like magic spells.) Just as we don't go by pure voting, & we don't go by strict precedent, we don't go by artificial procedural limitations. We do pay attention to all of these, but we're not bound by them. In the earliest years of WP, there were no effective rules for anything, and a great deal of what was produced was outrageously substandard by current practice. In reaction to it people began developing procedures and rules as complicated as they could devise; every limitation & formality we did there probably needs to be reconsidered, Some, like the narrow interpretation of the scope of Del Rev, we have in practice reconsidered. For that matter, AfD and Del Rev are by far the most effective DR mechanism we have for article content -- I'd even say they are the only effective methods, short of a full AfC. We should bring as much as we can within their scope--they work, with both a greater perceived and a great actual fairness than any other of our procedures. If you doubt that, think carefully about AN/I , and arb com,and AfCUser, or any of the long standing unresolved content problems. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG. I think you're talking to me. I must have been unclear, or have composed that poorly. DRV reviews the AfD, sure. It was fine. What I mean is that there is no need to come to DRV to get permission to recreate, or to relist at AfD to seek greater clarity on merge instructions, these things can be discussed and consensus developed at the merge target and its talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for misunderstanding. Yes, that can be done also. But if the recreation it is going to be contested, it can be useful to bring it here, and this is the sort of article I might want to do so. I don't see how you could relist it atAfD for further instructions--you could bring the redirect to RfD, but that wouldn't do what is wanted. The normal course for further instructions is to ask the closing admin what they had in mind. DGG ( talk ) 14:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (not I was the original nom). These sources need to be worked into the existing article and over time, if sufficient sourced NPOV material emerges to justify a split out editorial consensus at the merge target can agree whether or not to do it but it definatly doesn't belong at this title. SpartazHumbug!06:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I was not being clear: Most of the materials in the article were NOT about state-sponsored terrorism, so we can not add them to that article at first place. That's why I thought WP:DRV is the right channel, instead of adding the information to the "state-sponsored terrorism" article and bring the issue up at its talk page. As I said, the article has been incorrectly moved by another user to the "Saudi Arabia and state-sponsored terrorism" title when it was nominated for deletion for the second time, and I think this wrong title influenced voters opinion who voted for merge into the "state-sponsored terrorism" article. --Z06:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Procedural nomination. The page is currently a protected redirect. A new draft on Styles, independent of the previously deleted version, has been written at User:Katcalifornia/sandbox. Since the article was deleted twice, creation of a new version was made contingent on a deletion review. I don't have much of an opinion myself. Evidence for individual notability is not overwhelming, but present, including some sources focusing on him not present in the previous version. If this were a draft at WP:AFC I'd likely accept it, so I tend towards allowing creation of an article in place of the redirect. Huon (talk) 00:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain, more information needed--the draft at User:Katcalifornia/sandbox is mostly info about the band with a little early-life stuff that's pretty much trivial. If that's a sample of what the article would look like it's probably best to leave it as a redirect. The question that needs to be asked is this: what reliably-sourced, non-trivial information would go into a Harry Styles article that wouldn't go into any other article, such as the One Direction band article? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind02:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maintain Redirect - I see nothing in the draft article that would establish that a standalone article is justified at this point. -- Whpq (talk) 02:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Creation -- While I agree that the article draft is fairly bare bones, my understanding was that once the article was up it would be all right to rely on additional contributions to flesh it out, and I think Styles is notable enough on his own for that to happen. Some possible content would be his widely-reported relationships,[1][2] particularly with older women[3] (speculation about his relationship with Taylor Swift continues more than eight months after their alleged break up),[4][5][6], and (more valuably), his relationship with his intensely committed fan following -- reaching out to a terminally ill fan,[7][8] accepting and prominently wearing a necklace given to him by a fan,[9][10] defending fans to the press,[11] etc. It's also interesting to note that Styles has more Twitter followers (currently 16.3 million)[12] than the official One Direction account (currently 15.1 million)[13] and than any other member of One Direction (Niall Horan is currently the second most-followed, with 14.3 million)[14][15][16][17]. Prominent entertainment news outlets have recognized him as an individual as well, with Styles making a GQ list of most stylish men[18] and a Guardian blog singling him out as capable of inspiring new style trends.[19] Additionally, Styles has recently had to respond to rumors that he has recorded solo work.[20]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Katcalifornia (talk • contribs) 08:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation without prejudice to a subsequent AfD. A good faith user wants to create an article in this space, and it's clearly not an attempted end-run around a previous consensus or anything else DRV should be interested in. We aren't the article police. The correct venue for a discussion at this level of detail is AfD. Also, if we were at AfD I would find Katcalifornia's sources convincing.—S MarshallT/C11:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find them convincing at all. The Twitter sources are obviously out straight away. Sources 1 and 19 is for the band first and foremost; some of the others may be (just covering things he's done whilst in the band, not a lot else). A lot of the other coverage is gossipy stuff surrounding his relationship with Taylor Swift, which is not encyclopedically notable on its own, only for fluffing out an article. Most of the remaining stuff is either unreliable, of questionable reliability, or pretty damn routine. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)14:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are people notable for nothing but "gossipy stuff"; that's not much of a rationale. I'm pretty sure gossip about you or me wouldn't make the newspapers. So arguably Styles must be notable if reliable sources such as the LA Times or the Telegraph publish gossip about him. Huon (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maintain redirect. He is only notable for being in One Direction. Band members don't get articles just because they're in notable bands. Styles has not done any solo projects of any type, or anything else outside of One Direction. –anemoneprojectors– 13:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation This discussion seems procedurally obnoxious as the tiny DRV attendance shouldn't be gatekeepers for a topic as well-known as this. I see this guy's name in the press all the time though I haven't paid any attention to it before now. Looking, I find that numerous book-length biographies have already been written about this person such as Harry Styles, Harry Styles, Harry Styles, and more. The idea that this person is not notable and there's nothing to be said about him is a joke - he is clearly up there with Lady Gaga, Prince Harry, Justin Bieber and the rest of the celebrity circus. They don't come any more notable than this. Warden (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The topic here is a blue link and so the issue is protection, not deletion. WP:RFPP states, "Further discussion should take place on the Talk page of the article." Note that the article in question now is not the article about the band but is instead List of One Direction members. That is not just a list nor just about the band but is five separate BLPs forced together. This puts details such as the divorce of Styles' parents alongside Payne's faulty kidney and the acting career of Tomlinson's sisters. This treatment seems unnatural and derogatory, failing to show proper respect to living people who are separate individuals, each with their own personal and family history.
If we look at the talk page for that article, we see that there was a discussion started in April, in which there is already a developing consensus that the people should have separate pages. If we look at the XfD discussion linked above, which this DRV is nominally about, we see that the result was not to redirect to a list page but to redirect to the page about the band. That result has effectively been overturned already somehow. And what's even more grotesque is that, in the case of that individual, there's already a large separate page too: Louis Tomlinson! So, why are we playing favourites with these band members!? DRV seems to be quite incompetent in deciding this matter because, until I got here, no-one seems to have bothered to check out the details of this case. But I suppose we should count our blessings that the matter didn't go to ANI instead, where someone would probably have been blocked by now for good measure.
As we already have several active pages about these band members, the draft which has been prepared in a sandbox should not be given any special priority. All that's needed is to lift protection from the redirects and let normal editing resume. If I were editing, I would start by splitting the list per WP:SPLIT and then redirect the list to the main article about the band, which only has five members and so doesn't need a separate article to list their names. Warden (talk) 10:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Recreation - I know nothing about 'tween stars, but googling this kid shows quite a lot of TMZ-style coverage not directly connected to the band. As much disdain I have for pop culture, I find it hard to deny there's a plethora of sources to support a standalone article. Tarc (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Allow re-creation I find myself agreeing with Tarc more than I used to, and when he and Warden agree on a position ,it obviously has a lot to be said for it :). I have almost no awareness about the subject, but common sense is to let an recreation be at least attempted. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation If you've got multiple books written about you, you are by definition (WP:N) notable. Given all the sources, this isn't close. And to argue he's only notable for being in the band, so? There are tons of articles on athletes only notable for playing on a single professional team... That's not a BLP1E issue. Oyi. Hobit (talk) 06:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Styles' notability might have initially stemmed from being a member of One Direction, but since then he has become a celebrity with millions of fans. As per WP:ENTERTAINER, one criterion for determining notability of celebrities is "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following", and Styles certainly satisfies that. FireflySixtySeven (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation Like it or not, this is probably the most talked-about band on the planet for the past year and I'm sure there are hundreds of articles that have been written about the members and probably quite a few books. For the many, many fans of the band who visit their page, the members are distinct individuals with Styles having the biggest public profile. If this group isn't notable, I'm not sure what pop stars are. LizRead!Talk!19:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We're not discussing the group. One Direction are clearly notable. But Styles is only notable for being in that group, and we have a list of members where information can be included - though I expect anything that isn't already included in the list entry will be trivia. A new article won't expand on that list entry or the One Directoin article - as User:Katcalifornia/sandbox clearly shows. –anemoneprojectors– 19:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that your argument is policy-based. Do you agree the subject meets our inclusion guidelines? Both the general, WP:N, and the specific, WP:ENT,would seem easily met. Hobit (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've got it backwards - the WP:GNG trumps all specialised notability guides. And it's easy to find counter-examples to your theory about WP:BAND - people such as Kurt Cobain who obviously have articles separate from their band Nirvana because of the great interest in them personally. The biographies about Harry Styles are huge - 256 pages, for example, and so there's not the slightest difficulty finding material. It's because of nonsense like this that notability is not a policy. It's just a rough guideline and so is supposed to be used with common-sense, not pettifogging prohibition. Warden (talk) 00:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Backwards do I? Oh dear. I always thought that it was the other way around. I thought that's why specialized guidelines exist.
My theory? That's a quote from the guideline, not my theory.
You can call Cobain a counter-example but it can also be called otherstuffexisting.
If there is good content in those 256 pages, that's fine. I'm all for it. That's why we are here discussing it. We want to know. In fact, if the book is really that long, then the standalone should do fine. Of course, I'm still curious why the parent article gets 10k visitors a day and still only contains a paragraph when such a long resource book is out there.
Pettifogging? I had to look that one up. I'm not trying to pettifog, and I'm not prohibiting. Note that I haven't taken the Maintain Redirect position. I'm discussing. I'm asking questions. Note the question marks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if you're notable in a general way, then you don't need to worry about the specialised cases. This is basic: "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below." Those basic criteria are that "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Harry Styles has clearly been the specific subject of such sources because it's his name that appears in their titles, not the band's. This is a simple way of discerning the difference - look at the title. Warden (talk) 10:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not familiar with the history of that clause in WP:BAND but it is not followed consistently - see Brian Jones for another example. My impression is that it's just a local consensus which will not stand when when it reaches the eyes of the general community such as we have here, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." Harry Styles is now not just a band member - he is a celebrity and the coverage of him is about his personal life, not just his musical activities in that ensemble. He should therefore be considered as a distinct person in that context, not as a mere component in some musical machine. It seems apparent that some editors dislike the subject and so seek to stifle coverage by treating him with contempt. Per WP:BLPSTYLE, "Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects". Warden (talk) 11:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When refuted, you seem to just abandon the argument and jump to a thinner argument. The Brian Jones argument is otherstuffexists. You then cite BLPSTYLE which is not about notability. Your last argument is that "...he is a celebrity and the coverage of him is about his personal life..." but where is the content about his personal life that's not trivia? Isn't that the crux? Isn't this what we're trying to determine here to help decide what to do?
Anyway, my friend, I don't think we're going to see eye-to-eye. I can see reasons for and against a standalone and it won't be a catastrophe either way. I have no feeling about the subject. Sure, I anticipate bickering over the triviality of introduced content, but that's fine. The article will fill out and be of use to visitors very soon anyhow and he'll probably do something aside from the band eventaully.
But what really interests me--and I'm just trying to learn here--is which supersedes which: GNG or the more specific guidelines? I always thought that it was a case of GNG unless XXX negates.Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've certainly always taken the stance that it's GNG unless XXX negates, otherwise we would only need GNG and there would be no additional criteria. WP:BASIC says "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below." "May" meaning it's not always the case and therefore the additional criteria should be applied. In this case that is WP:MUSICBIO. Styles is not a solo artist and criteria 1-13 apply to One Direction, not it's members. "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles". In fact they're not usually given a "list of members" article but in this case we do have one. –anemoneprojectors– 13:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now I understand where your !votes about not being notable separately from the band come from. Thanks for clarifying. I'd make a few arguments:
First, as noted above, the relationship between the GNG and SNG isn't very unclear. And in this case we have (arguably) conflicting SNGs (WP:BAND and WP:ENT) so things get fun quickly. In general, if there is a fair bit of reliable coverage on the subject and it doesn't clearly violate WP:NOT we will nearly always allow an article on the subject. In this case, a massive number of news articles and multiple books would clearly be over that bar.
I'd note that the part of WP:BAND you are quoting says "...unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases." While one might wish to argue that "notability for activity independent of the band" must mean something "important", notability is just coverage (per WP:N. And given he's got massive coverage for just walking around places, I'd say his activity has clearly been noted. That's not intended as sarcasm. Notability is about sources, and he's got them. Those sources cover much more than just him playing in the band (though they cover him because of the band). So he's notable (has been noted) outside of the band.
In general we should have articles on people/topics who we can write articles about (using reliable and independent sources) and where that coverage doesn't violate WP:NOT. Here, there really isn't a problem doing so. My 2 cents!Hobit (talk) 14:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since some are confused, let me quote the top of the page at Wikipedia:Notability. "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." See? Simple. You just have to meet one guideline, not both. This is because sometimes people can be notable even without coverage of them. A scientist who didn't do interviews but won notable awards for what they accomplished, is notable, even if he isn't interesting enough for the media to write about. DreamFocus22:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I'm confused. I'm seeing conflicting guidelines. Surely you are too. WP:BAND isn't part of WP:NOT. A subject can pass GNG, not violate NOT, and still be unacceptable per WP:BAND. Isn't that right? When rules contradict, is the best way really to say "A!" authoritatively, and ignore "B"? Shouldn't we acknowledge that the rules contradict and then move toward weighing things? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I'd call it a contradiction if there is a rule that resolves how to deal with contradictions. We've a rule that says "if A or B" so passing A is enough, yes? That said, you are correct. There is generally some weighing done. Given how wildly he passes WP:N there would have to be an extremely strong reason to not have the article. Given he clearly has coverage unrelated to the band (Taylor Swift being one clear example), I don't think WP:BAND even really applies, let along strong applies. Hobit (talk) 06:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines all tell us that they should not be treated as rigid rules, "...a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." We also have the general principle that we should ignore all rules when they are getting in the way of building the encyclopedia. One easier way to consider this issue is to see what Britannica does. They have a substantial entry Harry Styles. They also have entries for the other band members such as Niall Horan. It is therefore obvious that we should too. If a guideline says otherwise then it's that that needs to be changed because it is not a law, "written rules do not themselves set accepted practice." Warden (talk) 07:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maintain redirect - WP:BAND states that "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band". As of now, none of the members of 1D have received coverage that does not stem from them being in 1D. Another editor brought up tattoos - and the argument is that "well he was covered for his tattoos". However, would he have ever been covered for his tattoos if he wasn't in 1D? Are you or me covered for that? Nope. Thus, I come to the conclusion that the coverage of Mr. Stiles that is of him as a person not of 1D as a band is all stemming from his involvement in 1D, providing not enough significant coverage of him independent of his involvement in the band. ~Charmlet-talk-18:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation Massive coverage on his own. He got ample coverage for dating Taylor Swift, and would've gotten it no matter who he was. But whatever made him famous doesn't matter now. He gets ample coverage that doesn't involve his band or his ex-girlfriend. We go by what the WP:GNG says not personal opinions. DreamFocus19:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Allow creation: This individual meets the notability requirements for a stand-alone article. He meets the criteria in WP:COMPOSER #3 where as he has written the lyrics that were used as the basis of a song by the band, which is notable on its own. He also meets the requirement for WP:GNG in that there are reports and stories about him in multiple capacities: Member of One Direction, has a solo recording (Don't Let Me Go!) released/leaked online, and is the object of a song written by another artist of which he was previously in a relationship with (although WP:NOTINHERITED may apply here, it is a contributing factor in a greater set of circumstances). (edit conflict) Technical 13 (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation The guidelines all contradict each other, so they're no use. They always go "Mom says it's okay and Dad says don't listen to Mom." I want to see the standalone now because Katcalifornia and others will do their best to make it valuable to visitors. Sooner or later the subject will crash a Ferarri or say something shocking to the Queen or maybe put out a solo record. And, I've just got to see what's in this 256-page book. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation - passes WP:GNG without too much trouble at all. If you have a book written about you (no matter how badly written), and action figures (of you, not a character you played and not sold as a "five pack" of 1D members), and magazine covers, and newspaper articles, and tabloid articles and television shows... then you're probably notable. There are whole magazines dedicated to the band - pretty safe to assume that at least some of those profile members individually, without references to other members of the band. WP:BAND is important, but at some stage we have to be realistic about whether it can be practically applied to a "band" like One Direction where each member is going to have their activities constantly chronicled by news media whether they are with their band mates or not. In the middle of a bushfire crisis, a football drug scandal, a bikie war and an election week, national television news in Australia went into meltdown at the suggestion he might be in Melbourne. That same week, Australia's ambassador to China, Frances Adamson, visited Tibet for the first time (the first official visit since 2010) - didn't rate a mention. The Game arrived in Sydney that same week and Charley Pride announced his first tour of Australia in years. Neither got a run, certainly not on national prime-time news. Stalwart11104:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closer's rationale: To the extent this is a discussion about whether to overturn the "delete" outcome of the 2006 AfD discussion, we do not have the required consensus to do so. However, the question as to whether to allow the recreation of the article with substantially different content (the originally deleted version was unsourced rubbish) is a different matter:
If the article were not protected from recreation, anybody could recreate it, and the decision about whether to retain the content would be made at AfD, where a positive consensus in favor of deletion would be needed to delete the article. Procedurally, it appears counterintuitive that the aleatory circumstance that the article happens to be protected determines through which process the decision is made and which degree of consensus is required.
Moreover, making decisions on the merits of articles (and any underlying notability guidelines) is the province of AfD, whereas DRV is supposed to address procedural concerns only - but this discussion reads nearly like an AfD, with much discussion of sources and notability.
Finally, as several editors have noted, the 2006 AfD may not reflect current policies and practices.
Deauxma is a pornographic actress whose article was deleted four times between June 17, 2006 and May 11, 2007. The article was fully protected after the fourth deletion, which is understandable since it was recreated many times back when she did not meet the notability criteria on WP:PORNBIO. It has been over six years since then and I believe that Deauxma's article should be restored. Even though the article was deleted four times, there was only one deletion discussion for it here, which took place seven years ago. The other three deletions appear to be speedy deletions. Deauxma was not notable back then but she is now a popular performer in the adult film industry. WP:PORNBIO states "Has won a well-known and significant industry award, or has been nominated for such an award several times" and Deauxma meets that criteria because she was nominated for two AVN Awards for "MILF/Cougar Performer of the Year" in 2011 and 2013 and an XBIZ Award for "Best Actress - All-Girl Release" in 2013. Not only should this article be restored, but it should also be unlocked. Rebecca1990 (talk) 09:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not all AVN or XBIZ awards are considered significant awards. The guideline also states that nominations and awards in scene related and ensemble catagories are usually excluded. This XBIZ "award" cited actually appears to be a nomination from the link provided - 11 nominees in all and the nomination refers to a single film, Roadqueen 22. Is that a single scene? I'm sure that we are all aware that PORNBIO is more generous about notability then any of GNG, N or BLP and that given a choice between the two DRV tends to err towards the wider community expectation that all BLPs are properly sourced. Is this sourcing likely to be available for consideration at any point? SpartazHumbug!20:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Has this been discussed and agreed somewhere? PORNBIO doesn't actually define this. Also, I'm interested in your thoughts on the liklihood of sourcing appearing? SpartazHumbug!20:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, I haven't seen a discussion for the significance of a Best Actress award. But if you would like to start one you can begin a deletion discussion for Pamela Mann and Lauren Brice, two pornographic actresses with no other awards besides Best Actress and neither of them have been inducted into the AVN or XRCO Halls of Fame. And don't forget that Deauxma was also nominated for AVN MILF/Cougar Performer of the Year twice, which is enough to pass WP:PORNBIO, even without the Best Actress nomination from XBIZ. I am also working on Deauxma's article in my sandbox. Rebecca1990 (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have been following this discussion and I think I'm going to go Endorse after reading all the arguments. Its debatable whether the subject meets pornbio and ordinarily I'd go with a relist to establish whether the awards were significant enough but it is also very clear that no-one has proper sourcing for this individual so even if we accepted that pornbio was met we still have a BLP without a single reliable source. As the overarching consensus is that this is required for all articles to be notable and DRV undoubtedly gives GNG and N more weight then pornbio I don't see that we can go any other way. As a general rule, an SNG is a rule of thumb and can be depreceated if a thorough search has failed to find a source. That appears to be the case here. SpartazHumbug!09:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "This XBIZ 'award' cited actually appears to be a nomination from the link provided - 11 nominees in all and the nomination refers to a single film, Roadqueen 22. Is that a single scene?" A "Best Actress" award is pretty much the definition of "a well-known and significant industry award" as it relates to PORNBIO. The "MILF/Cougar Performer of the Year" awards are, IMHO, debatable as to whether or not they meet the PORNBIO standard. I would say that they probably meet the standard, but you'll get some pushback on that...likely from the usual "I don't like it" anti-porn editors on here. Guy1890 (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose restoration. Despite the obsolete and invalid "PORNBIO", which in this matter lacks consensus (as shown in an extensive discussion last year), these kinds of industry awards do not convey notability. Keep deleted in the absence of truly independent, in-depth biographical coverage, as per WP:Notability (people), which is the only valid and applicable standard here. Fut.Perf.☼06:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Last time it was extensively discussed, it clearly didn't have consensus, so it isn't one." Really? When was that decided? When there's no consensus for what to do with an already established guideline, the guideline is kept, not deleted. If you have evidence of the latter, please direct me to it. ErpertWHAT DO YOU WANT???17:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Erpert is right, PORNBIO is still a guideline. All deletion discussions currently taking place for pornographic actor biography articles listed here are debates about whether the subjects pass PORNBIO or not. Rebecca1990 (talk) 08:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's tagged as a guideline but there is obviously some dispute about it. If the discussions are solely around PORNBIO for inclusion, then people are missing the point. Go to WP:PORNBIO, scroll to the top and read the whole thing. The primary criteria is defined as still being the GNG, the additional criteria which PORNBIO comes under the section intro states "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.". Like many secondary criteria it's giving a "rule of thumb" as to if such sources as the GNG require exists, it isn't a substitution for that criteria. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 09:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There you go I fixed it for you and posted comment in the order they were posted rather than you inserting a comment making it look like I was replying to your comment. No idea what you last comment is supposed to be in response to or what you're having difficulty comprehending --86.5.93.42 (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the timestamps, I replied to the previous poster, you inserted your comment at the same indentation level as I had responded to, ahead of my reply making it look like I was replying to you rather than the original commenter. I sorted that out, and yes I will do it again if you decide to corrupt the flow of comments. I notice you've done that again, moving your comment ahead of the original commenter, making it look like you responded before them. I'm still none the wiser as to what your response to my comment then meant, it's pretty clear, passing PORNBIO isn't always required to have an article, and similarly passing it doesn't guarantee an article, that's exactly what the guideline page says. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 08:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no, you won't do it again (that generally refers to AfDs, but it's essentially the same effect), especially because you made it seem as though I was continually responding to myself; thus, you're corrupting the flow of comments. The timestamps aren't always relevant either depending on the issues being addressed, especially considering you're the only one who didn't seem to understand whom I was replying to. Also, "passing PORNBIO isn't always required to have an article...that's exactly what the guideline page says." I'm sorry; where does the guideline page say that? That goes for all the guidelines, not just PORNBIO. Interesting how you're only singling it out. ErpertWHAT DO YOU WANT???15:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's set the scene out here. Person 1 posts something, person 2 (me) responds to that, person 3 (that's you) posts something else, changing the order so person 2's reply appears to be responsive to them, then person 3 posts a none response to person 2. It's not difficult to think that person 3 has made a mistake and is now wondering why person 2's response isn't necessarily responsive to them. So person 2, tries to make the best of it by putting the comments back in to order, then posting a comment saying what they've done including the comment "No idea what you last comment is supposed to be in response to", yes I'll feel free to fix your breaking of the comment ordering, if you want to take this somewhere like AN/I since I'm so obviously being evil ordering comments in the way that everyone else does please feel free. Now on to your "Interesting how you're only singling it out. " - how stupid of me for responding in relation to the guideline being discussed by a previous commenter, in the context which is readily apparent if someone doesn't mess around with the comment ordering, how stupid of me I should have gone off at a wild tangent and discussed all the other possible criteria which weren't being discussed. How interesting that (again) you'd rather go by insinuation of some ulterior motive than have a reasoned debate. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Without actually returning to the discussion, no surprise again you ignore the actual point about PORNBIO (and FWIW it's worth, just to keep you happy, the other alternate criteria too), you fail to respond to how pathetic your weak insinuations of ulterior motives. I was leaning towards letting Rebecca's work on getting a draft together to have it's day, not quite there, but leaning that way, you however have persuaded me that having a reasonable debate on the matter is not possible, so I'll bow out now. Perhaps it's time for you drop the stick yourself on that huge chip you seem to have on your shoulder. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 07:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Does not satisfy #2 and #3 from WP:PORNBIO. Weak support for criteria #1 does not in my opinion be sufficient for notability. We don't even know her real name. No procedural error in deletion per se, although deletion discussion was very short and long time ago. But no new significant information has surfaced to counter the original decision. jni (talk) 09:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In a situation like this, simply saying "endorse" makes it difficult to tell which side you're on. Anyway, it doesn't matter if we don't know her real name because per WP:BLP, we can't include it if it hasn't been published in reliable sources. On a side note, it always boggles my mind when admins misinterpret guidelines by making comments like that. Should y'all be clarifying these kinds of things for us?ErpertWHAT DO YOU WANT???17:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edited my vote for clarity). Erpert, admins certainly don't have 100% understanding of guidelines - reasonable people have different opinions about them quite often. Of course I'm not putting great weight on not knowing her real name or any other single datum, but my point is the less we know WP:BLP-verifiable material about her, less notable she is. I'm endorsing deletion because cannot see improvement in notability since the last AfD. I'm not opposing relisting to AfD, that might be a good idea even. jni (talk) 06:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I always dread participating in porn-related discussions because of all the badgering, but with a certain amount of trepidation, here we go: I'm pretty far from being a fan of PORNBIO, but DRV wouldn't normally enforce a six-year-old page protection when a good faith editor wants to write content. Procedurally speaking we probably ought to send it to AfD.—S MarshallT/C17:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relist and "unsalt" Deauxma so that a new discussion on the inclusion of an article about her can be had, since the last discussion at AfD apparently took place so long ago when the PORNBIO standard (which is obviously still a valid, but not the only, standard) was likely very different. Guy1890 (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are many users participating in this discussion who are very misinformed about WP:PORNBIO. I've already addressed the issues with Spartaz's and Fut.Perf.'s comments, now jni, in order to pass PORNBIO, you only need to meet one of the criteria, not all three, because if that were the case the only porn stars with articles on WP would be Jenna Jameson and Ron Jeremy. Now a lot of you keep asking for sources on Deauxma, so I created her article in my sandbox and I'm still working on it. Rebecca1990 (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, oppose unsalting, oppose recreation. There certainly is a lot of misinformation here, mostly from those who want an article recreated. It is simply not true that it has been more than seven years since the most recent discussion; after the main target was salted, the article was recreated as "Deauxmae" and unanimously deleted less than two years ago, when PORNBIO standards were laxer than they are today. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deauxmae. All but one of the award nominations received by the article subject (in particular, the "MILF" noms) have been found in the past to fail the "well-known/significant" test in PORNBIO (see, for example, the Elexis Monroe DRV just last month and the underlying AFD). The article subject does not have a general "Best Actress" nomination; instead she received a nomination in a downlevel niche category that has never, co far as I can tell been found to meet the current PORNBIO standard for significance. The subject fails the GNG by a wide margin; even Rebecca1990's current sandbox draft does not include a single reliable source for actual biographical information, instead citing a narrow range of press releases, presskit pieces, and such non-RS's as "Orgasm News" and "Barelist" (not to mention "Southern Charms," which actually produces and sells the subject's videos). For more than seven years the performer's fans and publicists have been trying to foist an article on us with nary a shred of reliably sourced biographical content, and that stands as a compelling demonstration of the subject's failure to satisfy our notability requirements. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that isn't comparable, because that discussion was closed early only because the closing admin thought the discussion was getting too heated (I didn't think so, but...). ErpertWHAT DO YOU WANT???08:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The article subject does not have a general 'Best Actress' nomination"...she has a Best Actress nomination in a girl-on-girl-only film from Girlfriends Films. Either Best Actress nominations mean something (and they certainly do) or they don't. BTW, I am neither a "fan" of this actress nor am I an adult industry "publicist". It's becoming unfortunately very clear to me over time that coming to DRV on Pornography Project-related items is a giant waste of time. Guy1890 (talk) 06:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Personalisation again. You are once again advocating the creation of an inadequately sourced BLP by reference to a SNG, so its hardly surprising that participants here are addressing the disconnect between PORNBIO and BLP/GNG/N/V and making choices between the two. Go find two decent sources and you get this article back instantly, but its much easier to slag off editors who disagree with you because you know you can't provide the sources. SpartazHumbug!09:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Listen Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, 1. Both the seven year old AfD and the one from two years ago are outdated. 2. Most WP users who are active in WikiProject Pornography agree that MILF performer awards and/or nominations from AVN, XBIZ, and XRCO are indeed enough to pass WP:PORNBIO. You seem to be the only one who's going around WP, attempting to degrade the significance of MILF awards in AfD's and DRV's, including Elexis Monroe's DRV. 3. Just because the XBIZ Award nomination for "Best Actress - All-Girl Release" isn't a generic Best Actress award doesn't mean it fails WP:PORNBIO. There was a time when the AVN Awards were divided into separate categories for film and video, "Best Actress - Film" and "Best Actress - Video" for example, and that didn't lower the importance of those awards. And 4. You said that my sandbox draft of Deauxma's article "does not include a single reliable source", even though AVN and XBIZ are among the sources I used, which are considered reliable sources on WP. Rebecca1990 (talk) 07:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not personalize the discussion; that is inappropriate. As for what "most WP users who are active in WikiProject Pornography agree". that's irrelevant when it conflicts with a broader community consensus -- and, despite your assertion, there's no such discussion on the project page or talk page. Such claims should not be made unless you can identify a relevant supporting discussion. As for you purported citations of reliable sources, those AVN and XBIZ are all postings of company promotional material. The promo pieces are easy to find:
AVN source 1 [38] is a barely-touched-up press release; the original can be seen here [39].
AVN source 2 [40] is nothing more than a shortened version of the Girlfriends Films press release found here[41]; even the titles are identical.
AVN source 3 [42] is also based on a press release; a different edit of the same press release can be seen here [43].
XBIZ source 1 [44] is a barely shortened copy of the Girlfriends Films press release found here [45].
AVN Online posts promo material provided by the magazine's advertisers. XBIZ posts PR material on behalf of its clients. That material fails RS and BLP requirements and can't be used in articles or to establish notability, no matter what may have been posted in a Wikiproject discussion that's older than the deletion discussions you reject as outdated. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I already explained that those are reliable sources and I provided the link to prove it. You may interpret those sources however you want, but Deauxma still passes WP:PORNBIO with her award nominations alone. And if you're still skeptical about the significance of the AVN MILF/Cougar Performer of the Year Award, it is considered a "prestigious award" within the adult industry as you can see here. Coincidentally, Julia Ann (this years winner) stated in that article that among her toughest competition this year was Deauxma, now that says a lot about her notability, which is what we are discussing here. And also, I'm not done working on Deauxma's article in my sandbox yet. Rebecca1990 (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The extent to which a source is reliable is a judgment call to be made by individual editors on a case-by-case basis and WikiProject Pornography certainly doesn't get to set the rules to suit its own preferred inclusion criteria. It is a reasonable, normal position to say that there's nothing reliable about AVN or XBIZ. DRV has a history of supporting that position because PORNBIO is so far away from community-normal standards for a biography of a living person.
However, personally I'm coming round to the view that BLP standards shouldn't apply to pornstar articles. Deuxma isn't a person, she's a fictional character portrayed by a porn performer. She doesn't have a date of birth for the same reason that Gandalf the Wizard doesn't have a date of birth: the character is pure fantasy. Any "biography" you can find is simply kayfabe.
In my view the badgering that always goes on in porn-related DRVs as members of WikiProject Pornography try to impose their own standards on the wider community is verging on an actionable conduct issue.—S MarshallT/C16:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That has to be the strangest point of view I have ever come across. Pornographic actors aren't fictional characters; they're real people working under stage names (are Lady Gaga and Whoopi Goldberg fictional characters?). And "any biography [we] can find is simply [false]"? Got a way of proving that? I doubt it. Also, as I stated above, we're not here to discuss PORNBIO itself, we're here to discuss if an actress passes PORNBIO. Why are those two things so hard to separate? ErpertWHAT DO YOU WANT???06:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"It is a reasonable, normal position to say that there's nothing reliable about AVN or XBIZ." No, it really isn't, since those sources are just trade magazines for the adult industry. Certainly, there are plenty of instances when certain types of potentially "controversial" information should be cited on Wikipedia using the very best of sources. That's where an editor's judgement comes into play, and Wikipedia is, of course, a collective endeavour in that respect. Once again, many, many adult film performers, directors, etc. use stage names, and so do many mainstream actors. That's nothing new or even controversial really. Guy1890 (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Trade Magazines usually take a more critical approach to fact checking and the material published in them can be relied upon. In this case, both publications also routinely republish as fact error ridden press releases that misrepresent simple basic facts about the people they are promoting. Consequently its ridiculous to argue that we should uncritically accept them as reliable sources when they have been shown time after time after time to fundamentally fail the fundamental requirements for the sources that we are expected to use. SpartazHumbug!09:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"In this case, both publications also routinely republish as fact error ridden press releases that misrepresent simple basic facts about the people they are promoting." I've yet to see any evidence presented anywhere that this is true. That position is certainly an opinion held by some...usually by those that hold the adult film business in a general low regard. Trade publications and many other media outlets routinely publish information from press releases. That's nothing new or even controversial. "Rebecca1990" can defend her own version of this article (which I or someone else might write differently) herself, but the above identified sources are really just currently being used to cite very non-controversial facts about the subject here...that she has a website, that she plays a particular character in a long-running adult film series, and that she herself doesn't plan on retiring anytime soon, which really only she would know for sure. Some of this info could also be cross-referenced with other well-accepted filmography lists. Are there potentially better sources for this kind of information out there as well? Sure, but again...Wikipedia is a collective endeavour where more than one person can contribute to any given article. Guy1890 (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I really don't understand why anyone would have a problem with restoring and unsalting Deauxma's article. All this bickering is over a seven year-old AfD which included immature remarks such as "there should be a law about working in pornography after 40". The concerns at the two year-old AfD were that 1. "Deauxmae" was an intentional misspelling, made to avoid the creation protection on Deauxma. And 2. Deauxma still failed WP:PORNBIO because she only had one award nomination at the time. Both of those AfD's are outdated now that Deauxma received two additional award nominations this year. A lot of you keep getting sidetracked from this discussion, which is about Deauxma, a pornographic actress, and whether she passes PORNBIO or not. PORNBIO is used to determine if a porn actor should have an article on WP, not GNG, N, BLP or anything else mentioned above. I noticed that some of you really dislike PORNBIO, but it doesn't matter whether you like it or not, because that is not a valid argument on WP. Rebecca1990 (talk) 06:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As above PORNBIO isn't the golden criteria, you need to read the whole page PORNBIO features in, the standard still is GNG, PORNBIO is a "rule of thumb" as to if suitable source are likely to exist. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 07:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I sound like a broken record here, but, a pornographic actor is not required to satisfy any other guidelines besides WP:PORNBIO in order to have a WP article, I thought I made that clear. For example, here are recent AfD's for Mike Adriano and Celeste Star, two porn actors who pass WP:PORNBIO but fail WP:GNG. The result of those AfD's was to keep the articles. Rebecca1990 (talk) 12:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"here are recent AfD's for Mike Adriano and Celeste Star, two porn actors who pass WP:PORNBIO but fail WP:GNG." Let's not go overboard here. A well-written Wikipedia article about a subject in the adult film industry will pass both PORNBIO and GNG inclusively, since those articles will show that a subject has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which means "that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. 'Reliable' means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability. 'Sources', for notability purposes, should be secondary sources. 'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator." There are some limited exceptions for when non-secondary or tertiary sources can be used on Wikipedia. Guy1890 (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I just found out something. Deauxma is the star of a long-running porn series called Road Queen, and the series has made it to the Top 10 Chart on HotMovies on at least two separate occasions in 2007 and 2010, meaning she could probably satisfy point #2 of WP:PORNBIO, which is "starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature". That is debatable, but regardless, she still passes PORNBIO based on her nominations alone. Rebecca1990 (talk) 13:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Being on a single VOD service's "top 10" chart for an unspecified time period by no means establishes that it is "iconic", "groundreaking," or a "blockbuster". Rizzoli and Isles was actually number 1 on the New York Times list of most-watched cable broadcasts a week or three ago, but nobody uses such honorifics to describe it (except maybe its publicists). This wouldn't just lower the bar for notability, it would bury it six feet under. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"meaning she could probably satisfy point #2 of WP:PORNBIO" I'm sorry, but that's highly debatable IMHO. There's no reason to try and "stretch the envelope" that far. That's a bride too far for me. Guy1890 (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - WP:PORNBIO is shit, a relic of a brief period of time when sub-notability guides were thought (I was once mistaken in this belief as well) to act as some sort of override to Notability and the general notability guide. These starlets need to do something to establish that they are actually notable beyond being #49 in the "Best 50-Way Gangbang Award". Tarc (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. How many times do I have to say this. "I just don't like it" is not a valid argument on WP. Users with a conflict of interest are strongly discouraged from participating. And Tarc, you need to watch your language. It doesn't matter if Deauxma doesn't pass point's #2 or #3 of WP:PORNBIO, because she still passes point #1. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this. The AVN Awards are the biggest awards ceremony in the adult industry and it has earned the moniker "Oscars of porn". Deauxma has been nominated twice by AVN for "MILF/Cougar Performer of the Year". The XBIZ Awards are another big ceremony in the industry, and Deauxma received an XBIZ nomination for "Best Actress - All-Girl Release". Point #1 of WP:PORNBIO states "Has won a well-known and significant industry award, or has been nominated for such an award several times. Nominations and awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration." AVN and XBIZ are "well-known and significant industry awards" and "MILF/Cougar Performer of the Year" and "Best Actress - All-Girl Release" are not "scene-related and ensemble categories" and are therefore, not excluded. I have yet to see an article being deleted because the participants in the AfD came to the consensus that "MILF/Cougar Performer of the Year" failed PORNBIO, in fact, there are plenty of articles on WP for porn actresses, such as Darryl Hanah, with nothing besides MILF award nominations. I can guarantee you 100% that if Deauxma's article hadn't been salted and I went ahead and created it, it would not get deleted. It wouldn't even be PROD'ed or AfD'ed. And also, you guys are very inconsiderate for making me work really hard on this for the past few days, just so you can give me nothing but negative feedback on it, even though the information I provided comes from reliable sources. Rebecca1990 (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Once more I find myself agreeing with Tarc about what to do in a particular case, though not necessarily for the same reasons. . Although I do think there are valid special notability standards, it's not what written on a guideline page that makes consensus for how to apply a guideline, but what we do here. The current trend in this field is towards stricter standards than in past years, not looser, and I understand changes in PORNBIO as moving accordingly. In fields where so much is built on hype and promotion as is the case for some genres of entertainment, it is fully appropriate for us to be quite restrictive about the sources being used. This seems to be the case in a while range of cases. The practical application of GNG must be in accord with the nature of RW sourcing in the subject field--where formal sources are rare, as for some types of computer software, we are & should be liberal; where they are wildly overabundant, we are and should be restrictive. In fields where awards are rare and carefully metered out, we can and do accept those few awards which exist; in a field which gives hundreds of awards in every possible direction, we can and do accept only the highest level. DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about WP:PORNBIO getting increasingly stricter over the years, but we aren't here to debate weather or not Deauxma will pass a stricter version of PORNBIO in the future if the guideline were to be changed, we're here to discuss if she passes the current guideline now. It also sounds to me like you're insinuating that the existence of promotional material on a person automatically makes them non-notable. For example, let's look at Jenna Jameson, who is considered "The World's Most Famous Porn Star" and "The Queen of Porn". How do you think she managed to receive those titles? The answer is "promotion". She said so herself, it was her goal since the very beginning. Since entering the industry in the early 90's, she told everyone she met that her ultimate plan was to become the industry's biggest star. She was a contract performer for Vivid Entertainment and Wicked Pictures, two companies which promoted her and facilitated her mainstream stardom. She doesn't even seem to receive much approval from fans. Type "Jenna Jameson overrated" into Google and you'll see her fame come under scrutiny by people who believe she made very little to no effort in achieving her success. Despite all this, we wouldn't even consider deleting her article now would we? This also applies to celebrities. We wouldn't delete Kim Kardashian and Megan Fox's articles from WP because they have publicists? Publicity is irrelevant and not what we are supposed to be discussing. Let's not get sidetracked again. The main question here is Does Deauxma pass the current notability guideline on WP:PORNBIO? Why or why not?Rebecca1990 (talk) 06:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. When I started this DRV, I said that it was understandable how Deauxma was salted six years ago because of the multiple recreations back when she failed PORNBIO, but I just realized I was wrong, it's not understandable at all and there's something odd about this. How come porn stars Abbey Brooks (salted after 6 deletions) and Sara Jay (salted after 9 deletions) weren't salted so soon but Deauxma was salted after only 4 deletions? User:S Marshall stated above that "DRV wouldn't normally enforce a six-year-old page protection when a good faith editor wants to write content". I'm more interested in having this article unsalted so I can create a new one than restoring an old version probably containg useless information. Some users stated above that we should have this discussion in an AfD. I agree with either unsalting Deauxma or having the discussion in an AfD, because keeping it deleted and salted is very unreasonable. Rebecca1990 (talk) 09:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And remember, people, when you simply !vote "endorse" in a situation like this, it's confusing (which way are you endorsing?); !voting "support restoration" or "oppose restoration" makes more sense. And now that I think about it, an AfD would be better after all because when a lot of people !vote "delete" there, it's more objective because most of those users either like the subject or are indifferent about it. ErpertWHAT DO YOU WANT???16:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How many DRVs have you participated in? Do you ever bother reading the instructions on this page? Endorse is clearly endorsing the close = supporting the deleted state. Its perfectly evident to other participants. SpartazHumbug!19:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is your problem? Now you've just resorted to throwing out insults (and don't even try to accuse me of personalizing things again). But back to this discussion...I've noticed that when people really ask the !delete voters to focus on the pornographic actor instead of WP:PORNBIO in general, it suddenly got quiet. I hope people are finally realizing that, as Rebecca states below, this DRV is intended to decide on whether Deauxma's article should be unsalted; nothing else. ErpertWHAT DO YOU WANT???07:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My problem is that you consistently behave as if you don't understand processes that you have participated in many times and waste my time and that of other editors as a result having to comment on stuff that you either actually know or should make the effort to educate yourself on before making your comment in the first place. Perhaps I'm wrong but I suspect you personally know full well but want to make some kind of stupid debating point to depreceate the opinions of those who don't agree with you. Either way, its wholly unprofessional and borderline disruptive. That's even before we start discussing your habit of personalising discussions and labeling people who you disagree with. SpartazHumbug!08:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The real problem here is that the vast majority of "Endorse" votes are invalid arguments based on faulty reasoning. There are many participants in this discussion so far who have either demonstrated a very obvious conflict of interest, mainly a dislike of PORNBIO, and/or that they are very misinformed about PORNBIO because they appear to be rarely or never active in WikiProject Pornography. I honestly don't think that Erpert is trying to depreciate the "Endorse" votes, he is just acknowledging all this and also the fact that many users have gotten sidetracked from this discussion, which is a debate about the creation protection currently in place for Deauxma and if she passes PORNBIO, not a debate about the PORNBIO guideline itself. Rebecca1990 (talk) 11:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute and utter nonsense, and close to an attempt at deliberate disruption. No one on the opposite side of the debate from Rebecca1990 has shown any sort of conflict of interest. None whatever. Believing that a guideline is defective, or that it has lost consensus support and should be deprecated is not a conflict of interest. Rejecting a disputed interpretation of a guideline is not a conflict of interest. There was a very clear consensus in the last round of efforts to rewrite PORNBIO, a bit over a year ago, to reject the principle that all individual awards/nominations, regardless of category, are suitable for establishing notability. That principle grew out of AFDs where, as I recall, awards such as those for "unsung" performers, and for best fill-in-the-body-part were disregarded, and has later been extended to exclude categories like "Web Babe" and, yes, "Best MILF". The PORNBIO talk discussions didn't settle on a final wording, but the main alternative collectively received very broad support, and have many elements in common. Morbidthoughts' proposal -- key language "The significance of an award/nomination is based on the notability of the awarding organization such as AVN and the award category" -- enjoyed consensus in principle, but no agreement on a final text was reached due to disputes over whether to maintain the "multiple years" requirements for nominations and exactly how to measure "notability," which was meant to be a stronger standard than simply notable-enough-for-a-Wikipedia-article. It's reprehensible for you and a small number of other users to continuously cast aspersions on users who try to apply the principles hammered out in those lengthy discussions, and to make veiled (and increasingly not-so-veiled) accusations of bad faith against them -- or "us", if you prefer, since lately you've tossed such barbs in my direction. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"No one on the opposite side of the debate from Rebecca1990 has shown any sort of conflict of interest. None whatever." Really? Do quotes like "I'm pretty far from being a fan of PORNBIO" and "WP:PORNBIO is sh*t" mentioned above not demonstrate a conflict of interest? I also didn't say that ALL "Endorse" votes were from users with a conflict of interest, I said that a lot of them were misinformed about PORNBIO, making comments such as "obsolete and invalid "PORNBIO"", which is simply not true, PORNBIO is still a guideline. I already addressed the issues with those type of comments earlier in the discussion. You also stated "as I recall, awards such as those for "unsung" performers, and for best fill-in-the-body-part were disregarded, and has later been extended to exclude categories like "Web Babe" and, yes, "Best MILF"". Now lets take a look at articles like these for example: Amber Rayne (nothing besides "unsung" awards), Ashlynn Brooke (only award there that counts as an individual award is the F.A.M.E. Award for "Favorite Breasts"), Catalina Cruz (nothing besides Web Babe/Starlet awards/nominations), and Darryl Hanah (nothing besides MILF award nominations). Feel free to start an AfD for these articles and when they are kept, you will realize that you were mistaken. Rebecca1990 (talk) 03:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"It's reprehensible for you and a small number of other users to continuously cast aspersions on users who try to apply the principles hammered out in those lengthy discussions"...which, of course, you never seem to link to in order to try & prove what you're saying is actually true...ugh... Look, if you want to continually & strongly assert things like "That principle grew out of AFDs where, as I recall, awards such as those for 'unsung' performers, and for best fill-in-the-body-part were disregarded, and has later been extended to exclude categories like 'Web Babe' and, yes, 'Best MILF'", then you need to provide objective evidence (not your own stated "memory") of such community decisions that show actual consensus for those assertions. Guy1890 (talk) 02:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, in other words, you refuse to extend good faith to users who disagree with you, and hold discussions like these to higher sourcing standards than BLPs? Perhazps that's the policy at bizarro.wikipedia.org, but not here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand from your history on here Mr. Wolfowitz that you basically happen to fancy yourself as a member of the "Wikipedia BLP Police", but nobody on here has appointed you to that title, since it doesn't appear to exist. What I am merely asking for is proof that what you are saying is true and not just your opinion. That's hardly unreasonable. Guy1890 (talk) 03:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A lot of you already voted to either restore or keep deleted, but very few of you have given your opinion on whether to unsalt Deauxma or not. Like I said, I'm not too concerned with restoring an old, useless version of this article, I'm interested in getting it unsalted so I can create a new one. And also, I've been receiving some criticism against my sandbox draft of Deauxma's article, but no input from you guys. You're all welcome to work on my sandbox and help make any improvements or corrections you'd like to the article to make it suitable for inclusion on WP. Rebecca1990 (talk) 01:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support restoration. Some people are bias against any porn on Wikipedia. We have policies and guidelines to determine what Wikipedia should have on it. Your personal dislike of something, be it pornography or the guidelines for it, isn't relevant. This person clearly meets the guidelines for people in their industry. DreamFocus19:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whose personal dislike? Where? Just because Erpert and Rebecca have been repeatedly bleating that rather than producing independent reliable sources doesn't make it so. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of what Tarc said in this discussion, and elsewhere when it came up before. Didn't bother reading what everyone said, seems long winded. DreamFocus01:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DF, I love porn, especially lesbian porn, even better if there's 3 lesbians. But not 4, cause that's just crazy. But what I don't love is when our cozy little encyclopedia project is used like a personalized Linkedin for and by the porn industry. These performers (actors they ain't) who have picked up a little award here or a handful of nominations there simply do not matter. They are by and large not important, they are not known outside of the insular circle-jerk that comprises the adult movie industry. I'll expand on this in a comment below. Tarc (talk) 03:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal opinions on pornography outside of WP are irrelevant. You expressed a dislike towards PORNBIO earlier in this discussion, referring to it as "sh*t". "I just don't like it" is not a valid argument on WP and PORNBIO is an established guideline for pornographic actor biography articles on WP and Deauxma clearly passes PORNBIO. Rebecca1990 (talk) 04:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My personal opinion is quite relevant, I'm afraid, as the "keep deleted" consensus so far is carrying the day. We have a little thing here that gets invoked sometimes called "ignore all rules", the gist of which is "if there's something that prevents you from improving the encyclopedia, ten ignore it." As such, we are ignoring the horribly-written, idiotic, low-hanging fruit that is WP:PORNBIO, as the encyclopedia is lessened and harmed by a glut of bios of porn tartlets which serve no purpose other than to advertise their product. Self-given industry awards do not matter. Self-written industry PR papers do not matter. Tarc (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I really don't understand the whole "Self-given industry awards do not matter" argument. Aren't the Oscars and the Grammys "Self-given industry awards" for Hollywood and the music business respectively? Awards are not exclusive to WP:PORNBIO. Take a look at WP:ANYBIO, which states "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." Awards are a significant indicator of a persons notability on WP and if you don't like the guidelines, this is not the proper place to discuss that. Rebecca1990 (talk) 04:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you really "don't understand" it, do you? It's been explained to you and others enough times before what the difference is. This is classic WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviour, and as such blockable disruption. Fut.Perf.☼06:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm am not trying to cause a disruption, I am just pointing out that many participants in this discussion are trying to dispute the significance of awards and nominations, even though both WP:PORNBIO and WP:ANYBIO clearly state that receiving a "well-known and significant" award or multiple nominations makes an individual notable. All performer awards from AVN and XBIZ are indeed "well-known and significant" awards and anyone with a minimum of two significant award nominations (or one actual win of course) passes PORNBIO. The only exception is sex scene awards, which are disregarded. I have been participating in WP:WikiProject Pornography/Deletion AfD's long enough to know this have yet to see a discussion where consensus has proved otherwise. Some users who do acknowledge the importance of awards and nominations, are still attempting to degrade the value of certain award categories like "MILF/Cougar Performer of the Year". The Elexis Monroe DRV was mentioned above as "evidence" that MILF awards aren't notable, even though that DRV did not conclude that. Someone did mention in that DRV that this AfD concluded that MILF awards are insignificant. This is also false. Read both that DRV and AfD and see for yourself. I started this DRV because it's time to have Deauxma unsalted and recreated. She was not notable back when her article was deleted and salted 6-7 years ago, but she is now a well-known performer in the adult entertainment industry. She has received multiple award nominations and coverage by reliable sources and this is all prove of her notability. This article contains encyclopedic information suitable for inclusion on WP and is not promotional in any way. Rebecca1990 (talk) 09:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Why don't we try this for an exercise...set aside for the moment all of the nekkid people, the hype, the morality arguments, and evaluate these performers and their media for what they are. Pretend for a moment that we're dealing with some random, generic niche topic area.
The performers are complete unknowns.
No reliable sources interview them, discuss them.
No paparazzi perch on rooftops to snap pics of their kids.
One (hyphenated) word: direct-to-video.
No red carpets for movie premieres, no gushing with Joan Rivers about their dresses.
If this were any other random, generic niche topic, one where the "coverage" consisted of industry press releases and the "awards" consisted of the same industry awarding what it, and only it, covered, we'd run them out on a rail. Tarc (talk) 03:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You could hardly be more wrong. "No reliable sources . . . discuss them" explicitly reflects such GNG language as "if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unsalting I'll be frank. I think Wikipedia should be a site for knowledge and entries for porn stars that list their films is more appropriate for the Adult Movie Database (or Film or Video Database, whatever it's called). I don't see any educational value in creating a list of porn "actresses" who are "MILFs" or any other niche genre of pornography. It just seems like consumer or product information, not knowledge (and certainly not art).
That said, I don't believe in salting articles unless they are patently racist or if they are so subject to vandals that there is no possibility of a valid article being written on that subject. So, I say, unsalt this article and give the porn fans the opportunity to write decent, referenced piece. It sounds like a good challenge. Then, if it is judged to be inadequate, it can go up at AfD. But I don't think Editors should be prevented from trying to compose an article, even if I think the subject isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. LizRead!Talk!21:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Allow User:Rebecca1990/sandbox to be posted to Deauxma. Both Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deauxma and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deauxmae lack detailed arguments and wide participation. Deauxma What links here and Deauxmae What links here do not show much either. I don't see hordes of fans trying to foist an article on Wikipedia. AfD is the place to address many of the issues noted in this DRV. The topic probably does not meet GNG, but given the passion for this topic on both sides in this DRV, I think it better to have an AfD discussion rather than prevent it. The process can handle an article on Deauxma without breaking the Wiki. Comment - The above comments argue over abstract ideas. A solution would be to present a draft article at DVR and ask that it be moved to article space. With tangible sources and text, DRV participants can discuss the same thing. As for GNG, I found one article that mentions her. The Chicago Tribune article notes "Deauxma (it's pronounced "do me").[47] The rest of the Deauxma articles that appear to be out there are about Kick-Ass (film) fictional character Katie Deauxma. -- Jreferee (talk) 06:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC) Another article I found is Notimex.-- Jreferee (talk) 06:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that, despite years of attempts to create an article, there's really no dispute that there is virtually no reliably sourced biographical content to construct an article from. At this point, we have only instructions on how to pronounce her stage name and, maybe, a DOB. A BLP requires more. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I don't think 'show me the sourcing and we'll permit recreation' is the right approach and I agree with the reasonings posted by S Marshall, Guy1890, and Liz. As for my view, it's important that we try to put all topics in Wikipedia on the path of ordinary process. I see an imbalance in the long term salting and strong resistance in this DRV compared to the relatively little interest shown in the topic via the AfDs and what links here. DRV is not the place to resolve policy or address behavior. The Deauxma topic should be put back on the path of ordinary process. As noted above, Rebecca1990 is a good faith editor making a reasonable request, so I think it reasonable to grant that request. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unsalting and send to AfD once the article will be created, per SMarshall, Jreferee and others. As said above by others, many editors here have confused this discussion with a new AfD, with the extra-bonus of a lot of personalization and harshness. The article was salted six years ago, ie prehistory, and at the time the subject basically had no claim of notability whatsoever. Now there is a claim of notability, even if maybe too thin/borderline to make the article survive at a new AfD. If/once the article will be unsalted, I suggest Rebecca1990 to keep on working on the article in her userspace before moving it in the mainspace, so as to try to address the concerns raised in this page and to give the article a stronger chance to survive. Cavarrone22:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Suphot Dhirakaosal – Renominated. A majority of participants are of the view that this AfD should have been closed such as not to allow a standalone article, although I'm not sure that we can call this a consensus to overturn the closure. Because this DRV was much more in depth than the AfD, I'm renominating the article and asking the people who opined here to make their views known in the new AfD. – Sandstein 07:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
wouldn't it be simpler to wait a month or two and then re-nominate it? If it gets changed to no consensus, all the difference is that you wouldn't have to wait. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete- Prior to the relists, the nominator had pointed out that the available sources were thin trivial mentions, and the other delete voter had correctly pointed out that holding an important post does not automatically confer inherent notability. The keep side simply presumed that sourcing existed, despite someone else already having looked and finding nothing. The debate could and should have been closed as delete at that point. A third delete opinion, after the relists, backing the first two simply solidified the consensus that was already there, and I simply don't see any way of manufacturing a "no consensus" close here. ReykYO!02:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete or relist. Turns out I should have contributed. I didn't (after the comment after it was relisted) because I thought three deletion opinions and a (rebutted) "he seems to be [...] important" wouldn't be closed as anything other than delete. The single keep vote offered no policy-based reason and while the deletion opinions weren't strong, policy-based ones, the nomination was fairly comprehensive. The closer viewed the keep opinion to be a "substantive argument". While I disagree, it does explain his rationale but I think it's probably just a tad over-cautious. That said, a no-consensus result does not preclude immediate renomination/relisting and that should probably happen in this instance if the result isn't overturned. Stalwart11104:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete a poor close from an experienced editor who should have known better. Debate leads to delete whether going by vote counts OR by strength of arguments. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind11:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Nothing wrong with the close, given the weak arguments. Inherent notability is a rebuttable presumption, but I really don't find the above descriptions of the nomination statement at all accurate: it says "I can't find anything", but that's not really a compelling statement in the case of a dignitary from a non-English speaking country with no particularly strong ties to any other English speaking country. Jclemens (talk) 14:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop presenting WP:BEFORE as though it is mandatory, when you know full well that it is not. And please stop pretending the nominator hasn't searched for sources when the AFD discussion clearly documents that he has. It's impossible to prove a negative, so all we can ask of nominators is that they have a decent go at finding sources, which LibStar did. He is, in fact, the only commenter in that AfD who can show that he did a basic search, and it came up empty. The burden of proof lies with those claiming sources exist. ReykYO!22:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(replying to Jclemens via edit conflict) The afd nominator says right in his nomination that "all I could find is 1 line mentions confirming he is an ambassador", and later links to his searches in Thai as well. What more do you want? Are you just assuming that because he didn't exhaustively list everywhere he looked and every unusably-inadequate source he found, that he didn't really look hard enough? I read this afd essentially as "LibStar: I looked for sources and couldn't find any. Ambassadors don't get a free pass. Pburka: I didn't look, but there must be some because he's an ambassador." I'm not trying to be combative here; I'm genuinely confused. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 22:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Whether ambassadors to major powers are intrinsically notable is a disputed point. The articlecertainly needs further work and a serious attempt at sourcing, but it is unreasonable to conclude there aren o sources from the discussion at the AfD. I think had I been closing it I would I would have relisted. DGG ( talk ) 15:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"it is unreasonable to conclude there are no sources from the discussion at the AfD." do you really mean that? the onus is on keep !voters to demonstrate existence of sources when lacking in an article. your comment here is a not so subtle keep !vote in itself. LibStar (talk) 23:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse A recent RfC about the automatic notability of diplomats closed as no consensus, so I don't consider so surprising that an AFD about a high profile diplomat closed as no consensus. I suggest to wait three months and start a new AfD. Cavarrone19:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
sure the recent RfC showed no consensus, but that is irrelevant to how this AfD was closed. We are only commenting here on the procedural nature of the close. LibStar (talk) 23:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Russia–Thailand relations. Remind deletion discussion participants that wikipedia-notability requirements do not mandate deletion per se. Every !vote considered only the WP-N question of a standalone article and did not address whether the little bit of information could be organized to within another article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He seems to have had a relatively distinguished career as an ambassador and I don't doubt he's a very accomplished gentleman. But, are we really going to allow a biography of a living person with this level of sourcing? Seriously?
I put it to you all that notability is not a consideration in this case. There's simply insufficient material available to form the basis of a Wikipedia article. We have his name, the fact that he's the Thai ambassador to Russia, the fact that he was previously the Thai ambassador to Yangon, his telephone number and email address, and according to the Bangkok Post of 1 September 2005, he announced a feasibility study concerning an energy sharing agreement between Thailand and Burma that would involve the construction of five dams.
Although I have no objection to a merge, I think that because we routinely deny people the chance to have their own Wikipedia article on the basis of pathetically small levels of sourcing, it would be rather two-faced to allow an article in this case.—S MarshallT/C22:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen numerous stubs for athletes and footballers based on less content. We have no policy requiring some minimum level of content for an article. Other reference works routinely have brief entries for minor topics and this is fine - "enough is as good as a feast". Warden (talk) 19:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There was no consensus to delete. Notability is a loose guideline not a hard policy and so it was quite reasonable to respect the Keep !voter's position per WP:DGFA. That !voter provided good detailed evidence which was more impressive than the contributions of the other !voters. Warden (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is the sort of afd and afd close that drives me nuts. I think it's clear there was a consensus to delete - and it would be even if the afd hadn't been relisted twice before garnering the final delete !vote - and DRV is not AFD part 2, so I'd normally be saying overturn, delete, and troutslap. I think it's also clear that that consensus was wrong, since the current entire contents of this stub would not be out of place in Russia-Thailand relations, and a redirect is at least defensible. I wish Dusti or Czar had offered an opinion instead of the kneejerk relist, or Metropolitan90 had instead of supervoting (or at least written a closing statement, even a couple words' worth). Overturn and relist, and I expect it'll get either redirected or deleted-and-merged. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 01:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete If anm RFC has failed to find consensus on inherent notability then the default state needs to be applied, which is that BLPs require substantial sourcing and not just single lines here and there. On that basis, any other outcome apart from delete is perverse as the closing admin has to discard a preponderance of solid policy based opinions around N/GNG to avoid deletion. The alternative votes most evidently do not have the same weight of policy behind them. SpartazHumbug!00:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article as it stands is pretty poor. But a news archive search shows a lot of coverage, though much behind paywalls. [48] and [49] are solely from his time in the US in a more minor position than he has now. Neither is likely to be in depth, but we would expect to see a lot more in Thai's press and from Russia. Endorse someone with his record has coverage, we just need to find it. I'm not going to claim every full ambassador is notable, but this guy is. As far as the AfD goes, the keep !vote was reasonable and no sign anyone other than Libstar tried to find sources. Delete would have been a reasonable outcome, but NC was too. Hobit (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I read Pburka's position in the AfD, but then re-read it again. If it said something like, "There is a likelihood of reliable source material because ..." and then Pburka posted what he posted in the discussion, I think it would have been strong enough for a no-consensus close. However, Pburka post, "Given the frequent coverage in English sources on Google", which does not counter LibStar's "1 line mentions" comment. LibStar rebutted Pburka's comment "more and deeper sources in Thai, Burmese and Russian" with apparent actual search results. Without more strength to Pburka's keep position, a non-consensus close could only be based on all around weak arguments plus twice relisting with no meaningful contribution to the discussion. I may have found new information: pipl.com gives a number of hits. Also, accessmylibrary.com. In 2008, Moscow summoned Dhirakaosal to Russia to deal with the arrest in Thailand of Russian citizen Viktor Bout, which an events of particular diplomatic importance. I didn't find much write up on it, but it probably is out there to satisfy WP:DIPLOMAT. A no consensus close means the article can now be relisted at AfD. The nominator LibStar had the strongest argument, but it was not that strong and it was in the nomination. The other arguments were weak and there was the double relisting. On balance, the close seemed to be a judgment call by Metropolitan90. -- Jreferee (talk) 05:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on sources: After some twenty minutes looking at Thai-language sources on Google (for the third time—I didn't comment during the AfD since there didn't seem to be anything worth mentioning), the only thing close to in-depth that I could find was this somewhat brief interview with his wife by Manager 360 Magazine (a reliable source) in 2004. It mentions their marriage in 1977 and his postings in Hanoi, Geneva, Rome, Los Angeles, Kuwait, the UAE and Yangon. It discusses their family life with two children (from her perspective), but that's about it. The rest of Google results are trivial mentions, either news pieces mentioning him doing something in his capacities as consul/ambassador, or in relation to political news / legal cases concerning Thaksin Shinawatra. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The administrator that deleted this category has admitted he thought it should be deleted. Thus, he should have participated in the debate, not imposed his will by closing the debate. The weight of the arguments was that whether or not this category should exist should be tied to whether or not we kept Category:Women sociologists. That category has not been deleted, and seems unlikely to. In discussions with the administrator about the deletion a strong argument was put to not delete this put not the other, but he suggested doing a DRV, so I figured that was the best course.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
what the...?The administrator that deleted this category has admitted he thought it should be deleted. Diff, please? I have made no such "admission", and I was the admin who closed it. I have suggested that I thought it should be deleted based on the discussion, but that's entirely different and that's what a closing admin is supposed to do. Also, given the nominator's comments, shouldn't this DRV await the closing of the discussion for Category:Women sociologists, as I suggested earlier? Good Ol’factory(talk)03:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you said you thought it was a POINTY creation in statements on your talk page. That shows clear bias against the category, especially when no one used such attack phrases in the discussion of it. That was not an issue brought up in the discussion. That is what you said on your talk page. An actual reading of the discussion shows that the actual points brought up say that this should close like the women sociologist category, which means you should not have closed one and not the other. Of the people who argued for deletion, one ignored the fact that there is lots of evidence that shows people do treat men sociologists as a group, the other made unsupported statements to the effect that men are normal and women are unique in sociology, a view that I do not think we want Wikipedia to endorse. Anyway, it is a wrong closing to have this category deleted while the women sociologists category exists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to assume a little good faith and not jump to the worst possible conclusion you can from a comment another makes. Bringing up WP:POINT is not an "attack phrase"--it was an observation that the creation of the category was prompted by the nomination of Category:Women sociologists for deletion, which the category creator has acknowledged and the nominator mentioned in the nominating statement. (This is contrary to your view that the issue was not brought up at all in the discussion--it was, in the nominating statement!) And John, just because you and one other user say something does not mean that that is what the consensus of the discussion was; in this case, you were two people out of six that participated. In this case, I didn't regard your opinion as representative of the consensus found in the overall discussion. Good Ol’factory(talk)04:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There were at least three people who said it should be kept. You totally just disregarded our statements, which were supported by evidence. Statements with evidence should not just be wiped away. People cited multiple sources that show that men sociologisits are a matter of study. These should not be brushed away and ignored.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know what I disregarded and what I regarded? Were you with me when I closed the discussion? Can you read my mind? Sheeesh .... Talk about making assumptions. Good Ol’factory(talk)15:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that a closing statement would have helped here. We should be able to know what you disregarded and regarded. Not all discussions need a closing statement, but close ones generally benefit from one. Hobit (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair statement, but it's not really directly related to the point I was making. (I don't really care if this close is overturned, but I do care when users accuse me of doing things when they don't know what they are talking about.) A closer does not make a statement, so others don't know what the closer disregarded and regarded. I agree, and this is exactly the circumstance in this case. And yet Johnpacklambert thinks he can come here and willy-nilly make allegations that I disregarded this and ignored that. That's an assumption of bad faith. Maybe he should ask me instead of assuming. Good Ol’factory(talk)19:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An issue here is that for some years, DRV has been quite heavily populated with people who think the CfD process is broken, but CfD doesn't agree, so we tend to get decisions from CfD that DRV overturns and relists, and then CfD comes back with exactly the same decision again. That's a logjam that we'll need to tackle at some point because I can foresee it happening again here. I think that if a discussion like that was closed as "delete" at any other deletion venue, then we would certainly overturn it.
On this specific issue I'm broadly with those who say: Either a person's sex is a defining characteristic or it isn't. If it is, then we need categories for women and men sociologists. If it isn't, then we need neither. Therefore this is intrinsically linked to the CfD on women sociologists and should be closed in the same way. This position was argued in the debate, but if that was considered in the close, then it's not mentioned in the closing statement. Subsequent to the discussion close, the closer mentions on his own talk page that it's commonplace for categories relating to one sex to be kept and the other sex to be deleted; but, previous decisions do not carry weight on Wikipedia. OCE and all that.
Assuming the decision on the women's category is to keep, which seems likely, that makes three votes to keep, three to delete = no consensus.
I was going to wait for the outcome on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 July 29#Category:Women sociologists, then raise this at CfD only if the outcome was to keep the women's category, but I suppose it can be discussed here now. Assuming the women's category is kept, this category should also be kept. WP:Cat/gender is the relevant guideline. Based on that sensible guideline, having a category for women but not for men would only be appropriate if women were a very small minority of sociologists. That is not the case. The two deletion discussions should have been considered together, and either both categories kept or both deleted. Keeping one and deleting the other is the sort of decision that has drawn a fair amount of public ridicule of Wikipedia lately. https://www.google.ca/search?q=wikipedia+sexist
Was it Pointy to create the men's category? That was not intentional. I created it after seeing the discussion on deleting the women's category, thinking about whether readers would consider a sociologist's gender relevant, and decided they often would. Gender crops up in all areas of sociology: family, religion, health, education, occupation and so on. Men are likely to have different perspectives from other sociologists, so readers will be interested in seeing their gender identified. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
endorse closure. This is not a !vote counting exercise, and the closing admin has discretion to weigh arguments more or less, which I think they did correctly in this case. Categories are based on things which are DEFINING - my comments on the "Women sociologists" CFD detailed all of the different ways in which our society discusses women sociologists as a special class, whereas male sociologists are not discussed with anywhere near the same level of interest. There aren't societies for male sociologists, special standards, studies, lists of top 10, lists of famous male sociologists, and so on; in addition, when introducing a male sociologist, they are rarely defined as such, whereas for women sociologists - more notably the earlier ones, they *are*. There is absolutely no requirement that we must always match gender categories - for example, I'm sure gender is important to feminism, but we don't have "female feminists" category to match the "Male feminists" category, because female feminists are not called out as a special group worth of special research. This all has nothing to do with whether gender influences how you think about sociology - arguably gender influences EVERYTHING you do, no matter what your job. The closer correctly read the arguments, and does not have to close in the same way as the women sociologists discussion because the policy explicitly states that they don't need to match.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The policy says "A gender-specific category could be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic." It gives an example of female heads of government, which does not have to be balanced because historically the vast majority of political leaders have been male. It then gives examples of categories like male golfers / female golfers and actors / actresses that are balanced, with articles split between the male and female categories. Since women are far from a tiny minority of sociologists, we cannot say that women differ from the norm but men do not. If a sociologist's gender is relevant the categories should be balanced.
The closure was incorrect because there was no consensus, and the tight linkage between the two discussions was ignored. The closure should be reversed, and then the two discussions treated as a whole and a policy-based decision made to either keep both categories or delete both. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the heads of state thing is an EXAMPLE - it never says "You can only have an unmatched gendered category if the gender in question is a huge minority". We are also not saying that women differ from the norm - in the same way, having African-American baseball players category but not one for whites, or oodles of categories for LGBT people but none for straight, none of which claim the people in this groups are different from the "norm". The claim made is that the outside world discusses in much more detail and with 10-100x the sources "women sociologists" as a group compared to "men sociologists". Otherwise you could make the same argument you're making above to claim that we should have "men X" for every single scientist, politician, writer, etc category, which is not previous consensus. Consensus is of these discussions is not agreement, it is rough consensus viewed through the lens of policy and guidelines. The closer weighed the evidence correctly in this case.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed out in the hastily closed discussion, a Google Books search for "male sociologist" gave about the same number of results (228) as a search for "female sociologist" (231) after scrolling to the foot of both lists. I just rechecked and got 261-279. There is roughly equal coverage of both gender-specific categories. There is certainly no reason to keep one and delete the other. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as not just no consensus, but consensus being neither possible nor relevant. It's not that CfD is broken but tat the entire category system is broken. Perhaps people don't participate at CfD because for the same reason I usually don't: there is no rational basis for many of the decisions within the current system. Categories are applied without consideration of where they fit within a system, decisions like whether to use ethnic of gender qualifiers are applied based on the current version of political correctness, there is a unresolved contradiction between categories a a practical finding aid and as a classification of knowledge with rationales varying from one to the other, categorization is used to continue and extend disputes over articles,
For at least the qualifier problems like these there is an obvious fix, that has been suggested continually since I've been here: category intersection, letting people use whatever combinations they think helpful, not only the ones we permit them to use. People would then be able to say: Sociologists AND men|women, or if they preferred, Sociologists NOT men|women, or just plain Sociologists, or whatever they were actually looking for. Encyclopedias are for use, and the content and arrangement equally are meant to be helpful to users. In the paper era, the makers of an encyclopedia had of necessity to fix a small number of possible ways of access, but WP is NOT PAPER, and we should not just permit but facilitate all organization methods anyone wants to apply. There is no need for consensus about what specific categories to use: anything technically possible should be permitted. DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Easy with the baby and the bathwater. I am personally a big fan of category intersections, and have done some work on them. See a pilot here: Category:Singaporean_poets. One of the early wikipedia developers put together a script that makes it dynamic - instructions are on my homepage for an even better version than the Singpore poets version. But we aren't there yet, so complaining about the category system is irrelevant to this DRV. If you want to help, drop me a line.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with DGG that using software to automatically combine categories on demand with simple and/or/not formulations is the way to go. This does not mean allowing silly or subjective categories. But as Kenobi points out we are not there yet. We have to work within the current framework until the software is improved. WP:Cat/gender implies that entries in an unbalanced gender-specific category should also be filed in the gender-neutral category. This will seem redundant to many editors, but we do not want category:sociologists to hold nothing but men, with the women "ghettoized" into a sub-category. Or vice-versa. That is likely to be the effect of an unbalanced sub-category. Splitting the category into sub-categories for men and women avoids the issue, as does deleting both sub-categories. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not quite. We have many such categories, but you are correct, all the women should go in the gender neutral category - but it doesn't mean you always need to match genders - this is an interesting mirror argument, as many of those !voting to keep american female novelists were shocked, appalled, and flabbergasted at the idea of an American male novelists category, but that one did have sources. I think google search results for "male sociologist" is not sufficient - I'm talking about conferences, meetings, awards, top-10-lists, and organizations devoted particularly to this issue. In any case re: ghettoizing, I hope ppl learned that lesson from the American novelists fiasco.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See above. Google book search results give almost identical counts for men and women. I cannot accept that all the male results were casual mentions and all the female results were in-depth coverage. 261-279. That is good enough for me. Keep both or delete both. Both discussions should have been reviewed and closed together. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"everything technically possible" means every combination technicallypossible of WP descritors, not of every possible noun and adjective, pair. Some will
overturn to NC for now There was no consensus to delete. Policy is split--we have the idea of "defining" characteristic of categories. But we also have a very specific set of rules for categories and gender. One group argued one policy, the other argued the other. The as numbers were close, it's a bit surprising the the more general rule (defining) was found to trump the specific rule that is clearly on point given that the more specific rule had similar (identical?) support. This leaned toward keep (assuming the other cat is kept) if anything. In addition, I'd like to encourage closers to provide a closing statement when acting without numeric consensus. Hobit (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
changed my mind I've done some more searches, using a different technique, that unearthed a lot more that I had missed before. There is still many more sources/papers/etc that are ABOUT women sociologists as the primary topic, and then address male sociologists during, but there are also sufficient sources to demonstrate that male sociologists as a class are studied, even if not as much as women. I still think this close was within discretion, so I'd still say we should endorse but allow recreation of the category, but as "Male sociologists" ("men sociologists" is practically non-existent). But I suppose it doesn't matter much either way.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and keep -- Plain deletion is certainly the wrong outcome. Either we need to split all sociologists by gender and have both "Women sociologists" and "Men sociologists" or we need to merge both to "sociologists"; "Male" and "female" might be better. In some professions (such as lawyers) gender is of marginal significance. In others (such as actors) it is of overwhelming significance, becasue men do not generally play female parts and vice versa (except in cross-dressing roles). The question here is whether gender makes a significnat difference. I lean towards overtern and keep, becasue in studying social relationships, it must be almost impossible for a social scientist not to approach the subject with a viewpoint based on their own gender. How many male lecturers were there in university departments teaching women's studies? That is a more extreme case, but it makes my point. I would not want the principle applied much more widely: some female historians will concentrate on writing about women, but many deal with history generally, which is largely about men. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As it happens, the specific example you used is factually wrong. See WorldCat, here , for several hundred books on female lawyers, some quite specifically on the role and perception differences in contrast to male lawyers, both in the profession itself and in the media. This is not "marginal significance." (and I could probably provide similarly overwhelming examples for anything analogous) We are biological beings with social roles; the gender differences between animals of the same species is ever-present and always important in any social context. (If it weren't, the disputes over such categories would never arise in the first place). The basic principle of nPOV is that we do not tell our readers what is important. We provide information, for them to understand, and we have the obligation to facilitate any way they want to organize it. DGG ( talk ) 22:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the question of male/female versus women/men, Google books gives 275 hits on "female sociologist", 237 on "women sociologist" and 260 on "woman sociologist". It gives 261 for "male sociologist", 149 for "men sociologist" and 178 for "man sociologist". "Men sociologist" seems a bit ungrammatical, but "male sociologist" leaves the sociologist's species in doubt. A move could be discussed once the decision to overturn this closure has been finalized. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
if you do a scholar search 'men sociologist' barely registers - the problem is 'men sociologist' shows up in searches but it's just those words often separated by a comma - when dsicsusing the class it's almost always as 'male soci
Overturn (or Undelete). If there is one gender-based category for a topic, there should be both, there needs to be parity. Just because a lot of sociologists would have be recategorized as "male sociologists" doesn't mean that the category should be eliminated. Wasn't this all decided in the decision of "American women novelists" vs. "American novelists"? Either no gender division or both a male/men and female/women categories for biographical articles. LizRead!Talk!21:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
note: each case must be handled differently. In the same way we don't have 'European-American baseball players' or 'heterosexual architects' we don't always need to match a women cat with a male one. In fact during the American novelists debate, many who voted to keep the women novelists voted to delete the male. In some cases we'll have both, but in many we probably won't - i dont see a need to create a female feminists cat for example. it all depends on whether the category in question is discussed as such in reliable sources and whether this is defining for the people within.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An unbalanced gender-based sub-category invites editors to ghettoize members of that gender into that sub-category and invites critics to assert that Wikipedia editors are sexist. It is only justified when it is very unusual for members of the main category to belong to the sub-category. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
that's contrary to established practice so I'd suggest bringing it up at EGRS. Ghettoization can be avoided in any case, and having both genders does not prevent potential ghettoization in any way shape or form.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn There was no consensus. And it seems absurd that discussions about related categories should be closed separately. If there's another discussion, it should take them together. Warden (talk) 18:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
TIPPS is the first TOEFL and SAT test prep center in Turkey. Furthermore, it was deleted for a reason (A7) that explicitly states pages about educational institutions cannot be deleted under this criterion. TIPPS is an educational institution. Sercandemirtas (talk) 06:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion has been deleted 4 times in as many months, 3 for promotion and once for A7, and has now been protected against re-creation. One could possibly make an argument that the 4th deletion should have been for promotion too, but the article isn't coming back and nitpicking the reason would be pointless. Besides, I wouldn't say that a test prep company counts as a "school" for the purposes of dodging A7 anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind17:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List at AfD so that there is at least one proper discussion on record. Four creations in four months means that Speedying is not saving time and effort, someone needs to have a discussion. Salting due to alleged G11 promotion of a foreign educational institution is unjustified without even one formal discussion to point to. New, inexpert editors should be expected to make the mistake of promotion-style writing in their first attempts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a little one-time newbie mistake. The article was re-created 4 times, in 4 consecutive months, by 3 seperate throwaway SPA accounts. All 3 accounts have warnings on their talk page not to post promotional material, including a final warning, which they have chosen to ignore. They also specifically admitted to being a TIPPS employee in one edit (just in case there was any shred of doubt). Also, can we knock off the silly euphamism? Referring to a serial socker/spammer as an "inexpert editor" is as goofy as calling a mugger an "unrequested funds transfer coordinator". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind20:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Send to AfD for the same reasons as SmokeyJoe. A7 articles (unless you can also apply an "emergency delete" policy like G10 or G12) won't hurt to sit around for a week while a permanent discussion is kept for all to see. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion The exception to speedy A7 is normally interpreted to a only to degree-granting institutions--we have frequently used it for tutoring centers of all sorts. G11 applies to everything, and there is harm in permitting advertising in WP even temporarily. PEople are not evil for trying to insert promotional articles, but it's still inappropriate here whatever the motive. New inexperienced editors should indeed be permitted to make errors, and not blocked for them, but that doesn't mean we need to accept what they do. Salting is the appropriate technique for a continued failure to understand. DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion is a very clumsy teaching method. AfD is less clumsy. I am not convinced that these spamming authors have so terrible, AGF can go a long way to our credit without hurting. COIs do not mandate G11s. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion the "educational institution" exemption from A7 is meant for schools, universities, colleges etc (see Types of educational institutions), not for a "test prep center". That an article has been recreated a number of times and that the creator is new do not make speedy deletions invalid or mandate that another process should be used. Hut 8.515:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, and reconsider the "educational institution" exemption from A7 while we're at it. Regardless, though, we delete spam, and it stays deleted. Period. If an appropriate article can be created, unsalting can be considered at a later date, but "It's marginally related to education so it's exempt!" is utter rules lawyering. SeraphimbladeTalk to me05:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new to this, but I was able to understand why the article was deleted for promoting/advertising. I deleted everything in the article except for two factual paragraphs giving the background of TIPPS. No products, services, stats, etc. were mentioned in any way, shape, or form. Despite the fact that "educational institutions" refers exclusively to degree granting institutions, thereby belittling other educational organizations that do not, deletion on the grounds of A7 means that there was no indication of importance. Beginning an entire new sector in a country by being the first prep center recognized by the federal government of a nation seems to satisfy the importance criterion in my mind, but if it doesn't for others, I would be interested to know how other test prep centers such as Kaplan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaplan,_Inc.), Barron's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barron%27s_Educational_Series), and Princeton Review (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princeton_Review), which make no such claims of importance, satisfy this criterion and are not deleted for promotion despite listing courses offered and published materials. There seems to be a contradiction here. Furthermore, a history of past offences (i.e. being deleted 3 times for promotion) does not necessarily mean that the article should continue to be deleted for such reasons, as Andrew Lenahan and others seems to think. I understand that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, but let's face the facts in front of us instead of mistaken assumptions based on history. I would really like to read a well thought-out response as opposed to the drawn-out discussion on "educational institutions" that seems to have plagued this deletion review thus far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sercandemirtas (talk • contribs) 17:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's get the obvious out of the way first: as a TIPPS employee you have an unacceptable conflict of interest, and you can not re-create the article, or edit it if it somehow gets created. IF it is notable and verifiable and passes our corporation guidelines, someone else will eventually create an article, although in your rush to have free advertising on Wikipedia you have created a significant obstacle to that by getting the page protected. With that said, let's examine the 3 other articles you mention. (1). Kaplan, Inc. - multibillion-dollar corporation with 80 years of history. Not exactly comparable to your business, is it? (2). Barron's Educational Series more of a publishing company, with 2000 titles and 300 new titles each year. Not really much comparison there either. (3). The Princeton Review, also a publisher, operates in 22 countries and... hey, wait a second here, 22 countries... WOW! Look at that! According to this site The Princeton Review has been operating in Turkey since 1996, and according to the deleted article TIPPS started in 1998! That would mean that TIPPS' one and only semi-claim of notability of being Turkey's first test prep business isn't even true! What an absolute shocker! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind02:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You said it right there "beginning an entire new sector". This statement in and of itself should show it doesn't probably meet the guidelines. If you don't understand how Princeton, Barron's, or Kaplan meet the notability guideline with the tons of information from reliable sources on them I'm not sure you understand notability. Anyway WP:OTHERSTUFFEXSITS would apply. Caffeyw (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
