| Revision as of 16:32, 31 October 2006 editXoloz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,915 edits →[]: closing (overturn; relist)← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 19:40, 6 September 2022 edit undoHouseBlaster (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators58,044 editsm Fix linter errors (via WP:JWB) |
| (4 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) |
| Line 2: |
Line 2: |
|
{| width = "100%" |
|
{| width = "100%" |
|
|- |
|
|- |
|
! width="50%" align="left" | <font color="gray"><</font> ] |
|
! width="50%" align="left" | <span style="color:gray;"><</span> ] |
|
! width="50%" align="right" | ] <font color="gray">></font> |
|
! width="50%" align="right" | ] <span style="color:gray;">></span> |
|
|} |
|
|} |
|
</div> |
|
</div> |
| Line 14: |
Line 14: |
|
Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page. |
|
Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page. |
|
--> |
|
--> |
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
This page was deleted after being created only a few hours ago. |
|
|
This noted athlete was the winner of the in 2005. He has second place in the Hermosa Beach Triathlon several times and is an All-American. |
|
|
Thank you for your consideration. |
|
|
] 22:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''', not notable. ]] <sup>] to electro-pop ] from 1984.</sup> 23:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse Deletion''' I tagged this one in various versions under this name and ]. Subject is a high school phys ed teacher (author appears to be one of his students) who has participated in a few actual triathlons, performing respectably for an amateur of his age, but not exceptionally. The above link is worthless; it's not an actual ], but a recreational event totalling 8.5 miles for the three events. ] 02:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
Actually, the Redondo triathlon is a competitive ] not just a recreational event. The fact that he is a teacher should not indicate lack of notability. In addition, is there a rule against students contributing to the body of knowledge? This page deserves proper review, not speedy deletion. ] 00:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Overturn and list at AfD''' as an A7 with a controversial assertion of notability. --] <small>]</small> 17:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
This page has been protected from re-creation; I believe this should be reverted for the following reasons: |
|
|
*The band has a contract with ], a major record company in Japan. It even appears in the company's website index: (in school uniform). |
|
|
*All five members have their own articles in Misplaced Pages: ], ], ], ] and ]. |
|
|
*According to the band's website, (warning: extremely cloying), it has strong precense in Japanese media (including major radio broadcast and magazine covers). |
|
|
*Four articles in Misplaced Pages link to this page. |
|
|
*The band even has merchandising: .--] 20:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*The article was protected because it had repeatedly been recreated, without a single assertion of notability. <s>I suggest you write a proper article (per ], ] and ]) about this group on ], which can then be moved to ].</s> Suggestion struck, see my opinion in the next comment. ]] <sup>] to electro-pop ] from 1984.</sup> 22:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**My opinion by the way: '''Keep the deleted versions deleted, but unprotect the article.''' ]] <sup>] to electro-pop ] from 1984.</sup> 15:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Undelete''' I'd rather listen to low-grit sandpaper being used to wipe the arse of a wooly mammoth with a bad case of piles than listen to an Aice5 song, but they certainly do pass ] with flying colours. ] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 03:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Unprotect''' to allow for recreation with proper sourcing and references. ] <small>]</small> 15:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Unprotect''' per above comments. ] 15:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Note on procedure only''' FWIW, I think GRBerry's point about change in circumstance is a fair one, given the AfD on Notable YouTube memes. I think a new DRV is thus not offensive to precedent, and I won't speedy close this DRV. If any admin objects to this view and wishes a speedy close, we can discuss the question, but I believe it makes good common sense to let this appeal be undertaken now, to bring the matter to a definitive close, rather than to wait a month, only for the sake of bureaucratic purity. ] 16:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* First AfD: ] - closed as '''keep''' |
|
|
* Second AfD: ] - closed as'''no consensus''' |
|
|
* Third AfD: ] - closed as '''delete'''. |
|
|
:''- ] closed the most recent AfD as delete. The nomination was "passing fad of no importance," which isn't really a deletion reason anyway, but the camps split into a few groups. The keep recommendations were based around the WP:BIO guideline, as this YouTube celeb (and yes, that ]) has had multiple media stories about her as cited in the article. Among the delete recommendations were that the media mentions don't actually confer notability (which runs contrary to WP:BIO consensus), that she's a "Private citizen who no longer wishes to have any prominence on the web," which isn't relevant, that she doesn't meet WP:BIO (three explicit mentions, two other similar statements, none of which are true). A ] shows that the closer was, thankfully, thoughtful about it, but also gave the impression that he dismissed suggestions based on the fact that this has been nominated so many times, but not any spurious arguments on the delete side. This should have been closed no consensus, if not outright keep, and the closing should be '''overturned''' and '''undelete''' the article. Originally posted by --] <small>]</small> 14:00, 20 October 2006 ''(UTC) |
|
|
However I recited his claims and added my own below. I was the one put this article up for Deletion review in case there was any misunderstanding. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Comment from original closing admin''' I at no point took the Notable YouTube memes page into consideration when I closed the original AfD. If the deletion summary read "Redundant to Notable YouTube memes", fair enough. It didn't. If the original redirect had been to Notable YouTube memes, fair enough. It wasn't. In my first post about this on Jeff's talk page it was mentioned it as an afterthought and certainly not as any kind of reason to make it OK to delete the article. When mentioned in my comment at the original DRV it was also not cited as the reason the article was closed. There is NO NEW ARGUMENT which calls the reasoning of the original closure (failure to meet WP:BIO, keep !votes failed to address the trivial nature of media coverage) that was endorsed in the previous DRV into question. That makes this a seriously anti-procedure DRV, and risks setting a very dangerous precedent. I'm pretty surprised no-one brought this to my attention given that it has been described as an "emergency", I thought this was over which, given the reason for its rebirth, it should be. <b>]</b> <small>]</small> 03:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''NEW Overturn''' This former renomination was endorsed because of the following reason ''"Emmalina article on page ] is enough"''. I agree with this, however the page ] has now been delete Emmalina is notable enough to now have her own article as she passed WP:BIO (having been sourced by multiple indepedent sources), therefore under my own judgment and per request of ] which states the people noted on that page are notable enough to warrent individual articles, but not clumped into one in fear of cruft, I request that the redirect page of Emmalina be unprotected and reverted to that version: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Emmalina&oldid=83491453 ] <sup>]</sup> 20:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Speedy close''' This just ran through DRV a few days ago (nominated by badlydrawnjeff) and was endorsed, no new arguments presented. ~ ] 20:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*:'''Comment''' I think that argument is irrelavent because larger issues are at hand. This is a WP emergency because the initial reason for redirect are no longer true. The former deletion review was endorsed becuase "] was enough". Notable YouTube memes no longer exists, as a result, this article needs to be relisted for possible recreation this is the new argument. Please view ] to see other requests for individual articles as well. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::*I know, I was the one who pointed it out during the DRV. Any any case, the status quo was redirect to ], so I don't know why the Memes article as a whole being considered non-notable should be an argument for overturning. '''Endorse''' in any case. ~ ] 05:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse status quo''', which is a redirect to ]. There is sufficient coverage in that article. --]<sup>]</sup> 21:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Relist''' This was a tough call for the closing admin to make. I said last time that I could have endorsed any of the possible closures, and that I did endorse the actual closure. Now ] is gone. I am certain the discussion in the third AfD would have been different had that article not existed. Therefore I now think that relisting is appropriate. ] 22:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Unprotect''' - If someone can write a decent sourced article about this, then let them do so. - ]]] 00:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''FYI''', I did not re-add this to the DRV if anyone is wondering. I had nothing to do with this, the result was typically improper, but I have no current interest in pursuing it further. My opinion, however, still stands: '''Overturn and undelete''', the original closing was improper. --] <small>]</small> 00:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Relist''' - I think if the conditions of the original delete (being included in notable youtube memes) are no longer present, the article should be relisted to review it on its own merits. ] <sub><small>( <font color="Red">]</font> <font color="Green">]</font> <font color="Blue">]</font> )</small></sub> 20:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse closure''', as this was just brought through here and endorsed a few days ago. The last AfD was closed as a delete and redirected to ], not ]; the fate of the latter article has no effect on that decision. <i><b>]</b>]</i> 22:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion, close, the last DRV on this subject''', no new evidence presented. <span style="font-family: sans-serif;">''']]]'''</span> 23:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Relist''' - though she may be not notable in her own right, I think there's some merit in including some details about her account being hacked, keeping her notability strictly to YouTube. Given that that information has been deleted off the Notable YouTube Memes page, there is some worth in relisting this for some more discussion. And "passing fad" is not a reason to delete. ] 07:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment''' Firstly I would like to state that their is a new argument. I don't understand how anyone can over look this. The article ] is no longer there! Emmalina was a redirect to YouTube because Emmalina was mention in YouTube article '''HOWEVER''' the YouTube article itself (for YouTube Celebrities) had a link <nowiki>{{main|Notable YouTube memes}}</nowiki> to that article. Also a large number of debater in the PREVIOUS deletion review stated that Emmalina was fine as a redirect BECAUSE of the article Notable YouTube memes NOT because of the article YouTube. Therefore the argument that ''"The last AfD was closed as a delete and redirected to ], not ]"'' and ''"no new evidence presented"'' holds no ground because Youtube redirected to Notable Youtube Memes and there is a new argument present. ] 18:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**If the original decision to delete was dependent on the existence of the ] article, then it would've been redirected there. There is no new argument against that decision, and the consensus at the AfD was clearly in favor of deletion. <i><b>]</b>]</i> 06:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Endorse redirect'''. We already decided that this subject has no real independent notability other than as a side-note to YouTube. Look to ] for a model of how to cover this kind of thing: small mentions on the main article for the really important fads, backed by the judgment of the relevant community as to what is genuinely important. <b>]</b> 17:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**Are there similar YTMNDs that got media attention like Emmalina did? --] <small>]</small> 22:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Relist'''. Looks like more attention is needed. --] 21:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion / subsequent redirection / closure'''. The right decision was made. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 14:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Restore article''' due to deletion of ]. I was content with having the latter page suffice for this, but since the absurd decision was taken to delete it, all notable YouTubers now need independent articles. ] 15:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC) |
|