Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:03, 16 June 2007

16 June 2007

Annilie Hastey

Annilie Hastey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article describing a Miss Teen USA 2007 contestant, deleted by User:Ocatecir with no explanation. Decision was marginal at best, and I feel that some relevant and strong arguments were overlooked, particularly that of User:AfterMidnight. Furthermore, a similar article (with fewer refs) involved in a similar debate was kept. See also my discussion at the deletion review for Holly Shively PageantUpdater 17:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Sommer Isdale

Sommer Isdale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article describing a Miss Teen USA 2007 contestant, deleted by User:Ocatecir with an unfounded explanation. Decision was marginal at best, and I feel that some relevant and strong arguments were overlooked, particularly that of User:AfterMidnight. Furthermore, a similar article (with fewer refs) involved in a similar debate was kept. See also my discussion at the deletion review for Holly Shively PageantUpdater 17:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Holly Shively

Holly Shively (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article describing a Miss Teen USA 2007 contestant, deleted by User:Ocatecir with no explanation. Decision was marginal at best, I admit I acted poorly in the debate but I feel that some relevant and strong arguments were overlooked, particularly that of User:AfterMidnight. Furthermore, a similar article (with fewer refs) involved in a similar debate was kept. I tried asking the closing admin for an explanation of this and two other decisions, but was impolitely rebuffed, although he did leave a message on my talk page suggesting that any keep votes relied on crystal ballism. He has clearly ignored the substance of each keep vote here: "Winning a statewide beauty contest is notable", "Miss Teen USA state level winners are pretty notable", "As contestants in a nationally televised pageant, these are obviously notable", "nationally televised event is notable, and so are winners in the event ", "state winners would be notable because they complete in the national pageant", "the sources are there". None of the keep comments rely on crystal ballism as claimed by the admin. PageantUpdater 17:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Seth Finkelstein

Seth Finkelstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Close did not follow the consensus of the Afd Discussion. On weight of numbers, 22 deletes to 19 keeps is a long way from any sort of consensus to delete. On weight of arguments, those who favored keep pointed out more than sufficient mainstream media coverage and significant acts to pass WP:BIO and WP:N. Those who favored deletion disagreed on notability, largely on "IDon'tLikeit" and "I never heard of him" (both of which are irrelevant) and on arguments over whether his actions and media mentions were "important enough" for an article, with little policy basis. And they urged that Seth Finkelstein does not want an article, as he himself urged at some length. His main argument was that the article was a "troll magnet", but the history showed that in fact it has been in a vandalized state for a grand total of less than 20 minutes over the last 7 months, a pretty good ratio. Even the current version of BLP says only that the closer can consider the subject's desires in a close case, but this wasn't anywhere near being close to a consensus to delete, and BLP does NOT say that the subject's desire is in and of itself a reason to delete, nor should it, IMO. The closer has been asked by multiple editors to overturn his own close, has discussed it, and clearly declines to do so. Closers have a degree of flexibility, but they are not supposed to find a consensus to delete where none exists. Overturn and close as "No Consensus, defaulting to keep". DES 05:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• As the closer, I'd like to refute the statement that "multiple editors" asked me to overturn my close. DESiegel is the only one who asked me to revert my closure, and I declined. See the relevant thread on my talk page. Sean William @ 05:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • While the words "Please revert your close" weren't used, I think that the comments of User:JamesMLane, and particularly "If someone else DRV's it, I'll vote or non-vote or whatever to overturn." are a fairly clear indication that he wanted the close changed. He surely questioned the close. But let this stand on my nomination here, and whatever discussion follows. DES 05:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• The closer quite properly decided what weight he would put on the subject's wishes. As it turns out, that weight was decisive. There's no problem with this close. The thread cited gives no reasons to rethink the close. --Tony Sidaway 05:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. As an award-winning leader in his field and Guardian columnist, Mr. Finkelstein is highly notable. Unlike a high school athlete thrust into the spotlight against her will, Mr. Finkelstein's notability is based on a lifetime of achievement, deliberate public stands on issues directly affecting society and active advocacy in the press. This is a position that Mr. Finkelstein has himself supported for others , . This means that, under the current wording of WP:BLP, there were no grounds to delete his article in the face of the non-consensus shown during the discussion. It took a long time for wikipedia to establish notability guidelines. The goal was to eliminate subjectivity from the analysis. Vocal opposition to having an article - particularly in the absence of any proof of harm - can not erase the fact that the subject of this article easily qualifies for inclusion based on WP:BIO and thus can not be considered "semi-notable" (which, at present, is an undefined concept). --JJay 11:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Tony. Valid AfD, reasonable close. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. No consensus, and the subject's wishes are only relevant when the subject is on the fringe of notability. Finklestien is clearly notable, therefore his wishes are irrelevant and the AfD should have been closed as "no consensus". Js farrar 14:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. The closer seemed to use the subject's wishes as the final determination. Since the debate on Finkelstein's notoriety ended with no consensus (which even the closer admits), using his wishes for deletion weren't appropriate. Jhall1468 16:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The_Holidays

The_Holidays (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

meets criteria for WP:BAND:
It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable (see which is published in a street press called drum media and and )
and
Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country,3 reported in reliable sources (toured Australia with Jamie T and toured Australia with The View) --Sam765 03:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• All your sources are blogs, they aren't reliable sources --pgk 07:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• despite the sources only being blogs, it still meets the criteria for a band as they have done a national concert tour in a large country (criteria for a band)--Sparkelman 12:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You mean if that is true it may meet the guideline standards for notability (Of course to know if it's true we need that verified from reliable sources, the articles content must also be verifiable from reliable sources. No reliable sources == no verifiability == no article. --pgk 12:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Smashboards

Smashboards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deleted after recreation per AfD even after it was rewritten so it wouldn't be deleted. Deletion Quality 01:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, the rewrite didn't do anything to address the concerns of the AFD, which were mainly to do with notability. The last version didn't contain a reasonable assertion. --Coredesat 01:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion If you're going to re-create an article after a consensus to delete in an AfD, at a bare minimum you should address the reasons it was deleted for. In this case, we need a claim of notability and some reliable sources, neither of which were present in either the old article or new. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)