Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review/Log/2006 October 26: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:45, 31 October 2006 editEveryking (talk | contribs)155,603 edits →[]← Previous edit Revision as of 16:32, 31 October 2006 edit undoXoloz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,915 edits →[]: closing (overturn; relist)Next edit →
Line 71: Line 71:
*'''Endorse deletion / subsequent redirection / closure'''. The right decision was made. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 14:11, 31 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) *'''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)

====]====
Please '''overturn''': Please reconsider the deletion of ]. My reasons are as follows:
*'''There was no consensus.''' A vote of 4 to 3 was taken as a consensus, but of these 7, only 1 was an aboriginal peoples scholar and only 1 was a member of the ] (me), and both of these parties voted in favor of retaining the article.
*'''The article helped to stem systemic bias.''' Benson is a Native Alaskan playwright, poet, and writer, and political candidate, fairly well known in Alaska.
*''']''' and when informed, expressed support for retaining the article. This was my fault, as I didn't know there was a such a short time limit on discussions on deletion, and, frankly, it just didn't occur to me to notify the WikiProject Alaska crew about it.
*'''Benson is a major party candidate''' and has been polling more favorably than any contender against ] since 1994, with a sudden upsurge in the polls in recent weeks. This is still only 36%, which was taken as a sign of non-notability, but in fact, it IS rather notable as far as Alaska poltics goes. ] 03:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
::'''clarification''' on this latter point: I am not predicting that she will win, I am indicating that she has much stronger support than anybody else has for at least ten years. This is notable in Alaska politics, although it may not be in national politics. ] 00:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
::'''update on candidate notability''': Benson is now only 9% behind Young, mostly because Young's lost ground, according to a new poll released yesterday. (I'm not sure if this is relevant to the deletion review, since the candidates weren't this close at the time of the deletion.) ] 21:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' for the good reasons ] pointed out. If anything, there was no consensus. ] 05:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
:::'''Additional note'''. FWIW, In Canadian elections AfDs (I am not Alaskan, but from the neighbouring Yukon Territory in Canada), I have consistently voted against keeping unelected candidates who are not otherwise notable. So it's not that I think that unelected candidates are notable, but that Benson is notable in her own right as a ] poet and writer and has been newsworthy in the past, before running for election. ] 03:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Closer's comment''': Deidre's first reason for overturning is null, as AfD is not a vote - besides, one 'vote' was from an IP and without reasoning. Contrast that with the comprehensive case for deletion by ]. The third reason is equally unconvincing - it is the responsibility of interested parties to keep on top of community discussions, not the responsibility of AfD nominators to scroll through the hundreds of WikiProjects looking for people who might !vote 'keep' before they get to make their nomination. Taking the two actually relevant issues together, it comes down to the fact that the supposed notability of this subject rests on two things - the fact that she ''may'' achieve high political office, which is ] (if she does win, the article can be recreated without prejudice); and her career as a writer, where the case for notability appears to rest on special pleading: ''"I would argue that any professionally produced playwright of Tlingit ancestry, writing about Tlingit themes, is notable"''... ''"The motivation behind my research comes from knowing how much more difficult it is for Native writers and performers to get coverage, hence the paucity of information on them"'' etc. I'm not familiar with US racial politics and don't care to be, but the subject lives in the most media-rich country in the world. If her work doesn't receive coverage, it's for the same reason as every white, black and ] author who doesn't receive coverage - because it isn't notable. This was all adequately discussed in the AfD. '''Endorse''' my own deletion, if it counts. --]<sup>]</sup> 09:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strongly endorse''' Sam's close - policy, regarding ] and ], are what matters, not a ''special situation''. I totally agree with same on the fact that if she does win office, the article can be recreated without prejudice. However, until that time, ] according to ]. I would strongly suggest that the AfD close sentence be mended, so it says about recreation without prejudice if she obtains office; otherwise, it may be deleted per {{t1|db-repost}} in error. Cheers, <span style="font-family: sans-serif;">''']]]'''</span> 09:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
*:I don't see that a special note in the AfD is really necessary. The fact that articles can be recreated without being deleted once the subject achieves notability is defined by ] G4, and commonly accepted in practice. Becoming a member of the House of Representatives is sufficiently obviously notable that I would hope that no admin would actually delete an article on one of them just because an article was deleted before they were a member. If an admin did delete the article under those circumstances, I expect it could be overturned pretty quickly, either after their error was politely pointed out on their talk page, or by a consensus for 'speedy restore' at deletion review. --]<sup>]</sup> 12:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
*::Indeed. That was a pretty stupid thing for me to say, and I hereby retract it. Cheers, <span style="font-family: sans-serif;">''']]]'''</span> 12:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

*'''Endorse Deletion without prejudice against article recreation'''. Deletion Review is primarily about process issues, and the afd closing judgement call seems to be reasonable here within policy/guideline framework. I would also point out that the afd discussion was allowed to run more than twice as long as the usual time limit (5 days), so it certainly was not rushed. However, I'm sympathetic to ] concerns (yes, the US is the most media-rich country, but Native American culture is not well represented. On the other hand, I don't see candidates for US Congress or the Alaskan gubernatorial office as being covered by ].). And yes, there are articles in Misplaced Pages which are both far more trivial and far less referenced than this subject, and survive only through diehard sentimentality - but this is a perversion of the WP guidelines (IMHO) and policies and not an ideal form of them. I recommend the article be recovered and rewritten in user space so that the focus is on the subject's cultural significance for Native American arts in Alaska, rather than the political ambitions (the main issue the delete voters were sensitive to). The crucial thing is that stronger references are introduced (The quite long Nov.18, 2004 profile of her as a writer/actress in the '']'' is a good place to start, but there should more references than this). ] 14:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
*:It wasn't exactly ''allowed'' to run twice as long - as usual, the AfD backlog is double the intended period, and split discussions like these tend to wait the longest. --]<sup>]</sup> 18:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse Deletion''' I see the potential for a rewrite, but the argument that "Wikiproject Alaska participants didn't know" doesn't cut it and should never be accepted here as a reason to overturn as a process violation. It is the Wikiproject members' obligation to monitor AfD's, especially if they run more than ten days. ~ ] 17:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
:'''Comment''': like I said, I didn't understand the procedure and didn't think to notify WikiProject Alaska. I understand that this is a weak excuse, and that, since I DID know about the deletion nomination, I should have notified the group. Now I have, and we'll see how it goes. ] 19:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

* '''Overturn Deletion''' -- I do see procedural problems in so far as there was no consensus rough or otherwise, and when the deletion was made, no reason was specified. I've spent a lot of time expanding Misplaced Pages's coverage of Alaska's political history and I find it discouraging to see similar work so arbitrarily undone.

:It's true that candidate articles can be temporarily misused as advertisements for unnotable candidates. But such abuses of content can and will be checked by other editors -- ''within the content of the articles.'' The articles themselves will eventually be unambiguously qualified for deletion. Haste to delete an article, on the other hand, denies editors (either for or against the candidate) the chance to get it right.

:The Misplaced Pages criteria for the notability of a candidacy are particularly ill-defined. But how is saying "this candidate cannot win, therefore her candidacy is not notable" -- how is that ''not'' crystal-balling? According to , none of these House candidates are in competitive races: ], ], ], ], ]. None of them are polling above 30%, nor do they have -- to judge by the article -- other qualifications for notability.

:Notability is a function of domain: A small fish in a small pond is relatively more notable. ] is notable not because he rivals ] and ], but because he made (I trust other editors on this point) "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field." I could not compare him to other ] poets. But if I look to compare Diane Benson with other Tlingit playwrights on Google: Diane Benson shows up in the top three hits. (None of these, by the way, are related to her politics.) Another search turns up , where Diane is one of five listed Tlingit authors. (], by the way, is the only other author from the list with a wikipedia article.)

:Another indication of the notability of Diane Benson comes, ironically, from the anonymous editor who asked in their comments that the article be deleted. One of the criteria for notability is "persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". The poster linked to , describing how Benson became what the ] called "the centerpiece of a national debate on freedom of expression."

:I don't know if Misplaced Pages observes the notion of a "reasonable doubt", but there are certainly more than ample grounds for that here. What we have with the delete, on the other hand, is a rush to judgment that doesn't allow others, readers and editors, to make up their own minds. -- ] 04:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

*'''Overturn''' Not a vote, but even discounting the IP address the consensus was divided, and the closing administrator made no attempt no explain his reasoning. ] 09:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''': 4 to 3 is not a consensus, she does seem notable enough in other ways, and while people may disagree with it, AFD precedent as it stands has generally ''favoured'' keeping unelected ''major party'' candidates for statewide or national office in the United States. ] 00:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''': This whole deletion seems like bureaucratic Wikipedian nonsense. How do people who have no interest or knowledge in the topic decide what is notable and what is not? By searching Google for Misplaced Pages hits? Diane Benson is certainly far more notable for her artistic work than most other Tlingit people and Alaska Natives generally, particularly in that she works in a medium that most don’t. I’ve seen articles about her or her work in the major Alaskan newspapers, and have overheard serious discussions about her work in at least one Alaskan theater forum. Her political campaign is only a short term phenomenon and not particularly remarkable. Many less “notable” people have run against Senator-for-life (to use the Anchorage Daily News’s term) Don Young and lost. In the interest of full disclosure, I ''don’t'' know her personally and have never met her in person.Nor do I particularly care about her work. I just think that this whole situation is inane. — ] 04:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
*'Overturn': Agreed. Even her run for election is notable for Alaskan politics. I don't see why it causes any harm if the Misplaced Pages article stays; it simply expands the amount of information out there. The cost in memory is neglibible. As an Alaskan voter, I want to see this information remain up there. - Alaskan voter
*'''Overturn''' - which might not come as a surprise, as I am a major contributor to the article. My reasoning is available on the original deletion debate and has been quoted above. By the way, I certainly would not endorse any implication that the closing admin did not do their job properly: there was a rough consensus and he had given it enough time. However, i think that certainly I and others should have done more to draw interested parties' attention to the debate. ] 09:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' for now. Misplaced Pages is not (despite the attempts of ''every single fucking candidate'', it seems) a part of your campaign publicity. The guideline for inclusion of political biographies states that those ''holding'' major office get articles, not those ''running''. Wait until after the election, we have no publication deadline to meet. <b>]</b> 17:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
::*There are two issues here: her candidacy, which pretty much everyone seems to agree does not in itself make her a notable figure, and her writing, theatrical and community work, which is a much more valid reason to keep. Do you have any comment on this second set of criteria? ] 08:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
* '''Overturn'''. No consensus existed to delete the article. --] 20:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:32, 31 October 2006

< October 25 October 27 >
Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 October)

26 October 2006

Frederick Lee Crump

This page was deleted after being created only a few hours ago. This noted athlete was the winner of the Redondo Beach Triathlon in 2005. He has second place in the Hermosa Beach Triathlon several times and is an All-American. Thank you for your consideration. Swoodward 22:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse deletion, not notable. Aecis 23:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Deletion I tagged this one in various versions under this name and Frederick Crump. 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 triathlon, but a recreational event totalling 8.5 miles for the three events. Fan-1967 02:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the Redondo triathlon is a competitive triathlon 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. 156.3.54.200 00:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Aice5

This page has been protected from re-creation; I believe this should be reverted for the following reasons:

  • The band has a contract with King Records, 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: Yui Horie, Akemi Kanda, Madoka Kimura, Masumi Asano and Chiaki Takahashi.
  • 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: .--cloviz 20:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


Emmalina

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. Xoloz 16:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

- User:Deiz 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 does exist) 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 request for clarification 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 --badlydrawnjeff talk 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. Valoem 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. Deizio talk 03:55, 31 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 YouTube, 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. ~ trialsanderrors 05:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse status quo, which is a redirect to YouTube. There is sufficient coverage in that article. --Sam Blanning 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 Notable YouTube memes 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. GRBerry 22:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Unprotect - If someone can write a decent sourced article about this, then let them do so. - Hahnchen 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. --badlydrawnjeff talk 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. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 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 Youtube, not Notable Youtube Memes; the fate of the latter article has no effect on that decision. WarpstarRider 22:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, close, the last DRV on this subject, no new evidence presented. Daniel.Bryant 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. JROBBO 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 Notable YouTube memes 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 {{main|Notable YouTube memes}} 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 Youtube, not Notable Youtube Memes" and "no new evidence presented" holds no ground because Youtube redirected to Notable Youtube Memes and there is a new argument present. 204.52.215.128 18:38, 28 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 YTMND 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. Guy 17:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist. Looks like more attention is needed. --JJay 21:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion / subsequent redirection / closure. The right decision was made. Proto::type 14:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore article due to deletion of Notable YouTube memes. 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. Everyking 15:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)