Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 April 17

17 April 2013

Mabel Richardson – Relist on AfD – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Mabel Richardson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I believe that this deletion debate should have been relisted for a clearer consensus rather than closed as keep. There were two keep !votes for every delete, but of the six people who suggested keep, two were new users who went straight to deletion debates upon signing up, one was user who has made a few edits since signing in late December, all of which were to longevity articles, one was the article creator, and no one provided any policy-based or source-based rationale for their !vote, but instead used their subjective judgement on what they felt was notable. While I certainly don't believe that there was a consensus to delete, given the history of canvassing offline about longevity articles (among other problems with articles such as these), I believe that relisting the debate to allow for more unbiased/neutral opinions would have been appropriate in this case. A recent comment on the article's talk page suggests that the proposed deletion would have benefited from further debate. Canadian Paul 20:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC) I agree with the above. Boleyn (talk) 07:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC) Endorse or Overturn (to no consensus to delete). Follow advice at Wikipedia:Renominating_for_deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC) overturn The only claim to significant notability is, as is said, from IMDB, so it's worthless. After that the only real claim is for someone else. The keep votes relied on the unreliable notability claim and can be discounted. Mangoe (talk) 12:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC) Keep - I wrote the article's talk comment, but it wasn't about the worthiness of the article, only the worthlessness of the DYK as worded (and DYK Talk has conceded that a better hook would have been the actress's longevity). I'd mentioned how the original AfD-keep decision had been hampered by a cite-ref to a pay firewall site but I didn't say AfD-keep was wrong! Nor that one shouldn't make a decision based on a pay firewall source (it was all fairly looked into, and the full source-text is readable at '100 Club, topic 1088' although that website's host is unfortunately Wiki-blacklisted, preventing direct cite-ref). Having come across the article from an unbiased/neutral position and looked into the article subject quite deeply yesterday (also read various cite-refs including ones deleted in early April) I feel there's an even stronger case for keeping it. The subject is worthy of remark for a) her longevity, b) her having known and worked with some major film stars, although she herself did not achieve fame, and c) because the article states her husband accompanied Chaplin (!!) to the USA on his first? visit. I think more may emerge about this in time (the article only makes the barest mention), and therefore both this article and a possible future one about her husband could well become important silent film era "stubs". Pete Hobbs (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC) Overturn Looking at the !votes, I believe a keep close is not justified. Of the six keep !votes, three (Futurist110, sophiahounslow, ExRatargue that the person is notable because of her age. However, notability is not for us to judge but for reliable sources to state so these three keep !votes should have been ignored. A fourth, Oscarlake, states that the combination of age and acting makes her notable. But, again, that's a personal opinion and needs to be backed up by a reliable source. The Listmeister keep !vote is sounder but the "oldest" statement is sourced to IMDB which is definitely not a reliable source. The final keep !vote, Miskatonik, quotes the Press-Telegraph article which, at least in the free summary, doesn't really assert notability. All in all, I'm not sure what the rationale for a keep decision is here. --regentspark (comment) 20:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC) There's a clear consensus to keep, and the closer correctly identified it, so no blame attaches to him and I would prefer not to use the word "overturn". If he made an error in not checking the debate participants' contribution histories, then it was an understandable one. But I agree with the nominator's comments about the risk of sockpuppetry in longevity-related discussions, and I can well understand his concerns. There's honest doubt about whether this consensus is real or engineered. Relist with a semi-protected AfD so that we can have a discussion that's convincingly sockpuppet-free and will give the nominator confidence in the outcome.—S Marshall T/C 07:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Somaya Reece – No consensus to overturn. While S Marshall makes a good point about the role of the closing admin, participants in this discussion did not, as a whole, find the admin's actions so wrong that it was out of the discretionary zone. Meanwhile, the newly found sources do not appear to have convinced people to change their mind either. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Somaya Reece (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) No consensus was reached in the discussion. Discussed with closing admin first. JHunterJ (talk) 11:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC) Endorse looks like the closing admin explained it pretty clearly regarding triviality of sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC) Endorse what Andrew Lenahan says. I also took a look at the sources and concur with the closing admins opinion. --regentspark (comment) 18:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC) Overturn per WP:HOTTIE. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC) Jokes aside, I find this a very hard one. It's on a murky line between "no consensus" and "delete" depending on interpretation of specific words in the GNG. If the nomination was from a less clueful editor, I'd be quick to side with "admin discretion". Given that an experienced admin disagrees with another's application of discretion, I'm leaning Relist for another 7 days, hoping for further participation, current participants positions already well stated. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC) temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review Altho a BLP, I see nothing potential derogatory or harful to prevent temporary restoration. DGG ( talk ) 16:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC) Discussion-based processes on Wikipedia are not a sham. They are genuine and meaningful attempts to seek consensus and implement it. In my view, the reason why Darkwind, Starblind and RegentsPark are wrong is because their reasoning is based on the closer's evaluation of the sources. It's not up to the closer to evaluate sources. Sysops do not make content decisions. They're not empowered to. Sysops evaluate consensus. If it was up to sysops to evaluate sources, then there would be little purpose in discussion-based processes on Wikipedia and we might as well replace AfD with a list of articles for administrators to examine and delete or retain based on their personal judgment. But we don't do that. Our processes are not a sham. I was assisted in reaching this conclusion by one of my big red flags of a poor close: the closer uses the closing statement to give you their opinion. That's a really annoying habit because it falsely implies that the closer's personal opinion was actually the consensus in the debate. It's not what closing statements are for. If you want to express an opinion, vote. Your closing statement is your chance to explain your assessment of the consensus in a neutral way. It should be used only for that purpose. Overturn and relist for another sysop to close based on an assessment of consensus rather than his opinion of the sources.—S Marshall T/C 08:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC) I believe that the sources are evaluated in the discussion itself, i.e., the delete !voters have pointed to the weaknesses in the sources. If a !voter says that the sources amount to "trivial coverage", how can the closing admin evaluate that claim without looking at the source itself? (I assume darkwind did not merely accept the claim at face value.) --regentspark (comment) 13:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC) And the keep !voters pointed to the ways the sources met the guidelines, and there was no consensus between them. It's not that the keep !votes were using reasons outside the guidelines (and so the closing admin should have discarded those arguments), it's that there was no consensus whether the guidelines were met. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC) There's a difference between a disagreement and a consensus. The difference is that a consensus is based on the weight of previous discussions in the form of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and that consensus is that trivial coverage of this type does not warrant a Wikipedia article; disagreeing does not create "no consensus" in that regard any more than it would create a "no consensus" that VH1 is an independent source for this article. - SudoGhost 15:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC) The coverage is trivial according to whom? Whose judgment prevails?—S Marshall T/C 16:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC) Good question. But, if one user says that the coverage is trivial and another says it is not, then do we close every such discussion as 'no consensus' because the closing admin should not read the source? If that were the case, then everything that is mentioned in any source at all would be an automatic keep - which doesn't make sense. Our policy says that trivial mentions are insufficient for notability and it is the closing admins job to evaluate whether the mention is trivial or not. --regentspark (comment) 16:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC) According to the elaboration given at WP:GNG. When an editor's judgement is that VH1 is an independent source for someone on a VH1 reality show, it doesn't inspire confidence when they then say that a single brief mention in a reference is anything more than trivial coverage; this is one of the articles he added that supposedly showed notability, and that is as trivial as a source can get. That editor's judgement is the only "keep" rationale given, the other two were "per JHutnerJ" and an IP editor claiming that biographies shouldn't have to show notability. That single rationale might be a disagreement, but it does not create lack of consensus in doing so. - SudoGhost 16:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC) I see that JHunterJ disposed of that exact point during the debate by reference to the exact wording of WP:GNG. We can't decide here whether the sources were trivial because this is not AfD round 2. What matters is whether there was consensus that the sources were trivial. RegentsPark's argument is that where two users disagree, sysops need to look at the source to decide which is right. This is a respectable argument, and I agree that can happen where one user is obviously and plainly mistaken. I don't think this was in that discretion area. JHunterJ's a user of sufficiently distinguished contribution history to command any closer's respect; the points he raised should not have been disregarded in that way.—S Marshall T/C 17:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC) There is a difference between "being disregarded" and not making a rationale consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines; I didn't give that example as an "AfD round 2", it was linked to show that JHunterJ's rationale was not based on Wikipedia's definition of trivial, per WP:GNG, and therefore does not give much weight in determining consensus. Are you really suggesting that "a user of sufficiently distinguished contribution history" should be given more consideration than other editors on the sole basis that they have a longer contribution history? - SudoGhost 18:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC) Not all users are equal. This is not a democracy; there's no bill of rights here. Our processes exist to support content contributors, not the other way around. Content contributors are given a great deal of leeway. While everyone has a voice in debate, I think it's undoubtedly true that to an experienced closer, some voices carry more weight than others. Certain users seem to have special needs of some kind, or perhaps edit while medicated, and are best quietly disregarded. Users with a handful of contributions who focus on a single topic area; users who always !vote to "keep" everything regardless of how trivial and unencyclopaedic; users who always !vote to "delete" because even when the title should be a bluelink, it's easier to start with a clean sheet; users who create few articles and are mainly discussion-page gadflies rather than encyclopaedia-builders; these are examples of less credible !votes that will sometimes, rightly, be given less weight. On the other hand, users who have long and varied experience, a track record of well-reasoned and thoughtful comments in discussion, and a long string of solid and unproblematic content contributions to their credit, who are clearly here to build an encyclopaedia, are less lightly dismissed.—S Marshall T/C 19:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC) I disagree completely, I think the rationale should hold more weight than who says it. It is true that experienced editors tend to give more convincing rationales that are in-line with how Wikipedia operates, but such an opinion is given more weight because of the rationale, not because of the editor who says it. Conversely, an editor with very few edits can make a wonderful rationale, the amount of time spent on Wikipedia does not detract from that nor is it given less consideration for that fact. When an experienced editor gives a poor rationale, it holds little weight because the rationale doesn't hold up when viewed through the lens of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, that fact shouldn't be ignored simply because there is a claim of "long and varied experience". That is an argument from authority and isn't how Wikipedia operates on any level. - SudoGhost 20:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC) Which neatly brings us back to the question of whether Darkwind counts as an "authority" who can evaluate the sources.—S Marshall T/C 20:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC) Again I disagree, there is a difference between "authority" in administrative decisions and "authority" in an individual's capacity as an editor; one exists, the other does not. - SudoGhost 20:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC) Admins don't make content decisions. They evaluate consensus. They're not authority figures.—S Marshall T/C 20:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC) That is exactly my point; I never said anything about administrators making content decisions, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say there. - SudoGhost 20:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC) I would refer you to my first comment in this thread.—S Marshall T/C 21:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC) I don't agree with your first comment's assessment, because the sources are evaluated in the discussion; explaining why there was not a "no consensus" does not mean it was an opinion of their own. I also don't think that a flimsy pretext of "these very trivial sources aren't actually trivial" by a single editor would create a "no consensus" that would enable the article to be kept on Wikipedia. The article has been deleted via AfD discussions twice now, and if there truly is "no consensus" that this has changed, it shouldn't be kept anyways when multiple discussions have already determined that it doesn't belong on Wikipedia and there is "no consensus" to the contrary. - SudoGhost 21:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC) Endorse - Per my comment above (disclosure, I nominated the article for deletion). - SudoGhost 15:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC) Endorse. This is the third time the article's been deleted. The admin closing the discussion didn't draw their own conclusions about the sources because several of the commenter (myself included) pointed out the weakness of these sources. In the articles pre-AfD state, all of the sources were primary, either from VH1 or from Reece's own websites. The 6 third-party sources were added during the AfD discussion and they were all on the same citation; in my opinion they were rushed strictly for the purpose of adding third party sources instead of making the article more robust Wikipedia content. And rush these sources were, a couple of them didn't even mention the artist's name. All of the sources were about the show. So a !vote to overturn this deletion is saying that a single citation point from six sources (which is overkill) of which some didn't even mention the artist's name is grounds for notability. I disagree. --NINTENDUDE64 20:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC) There was nothing rushed about the citations that were added. They were added quickly during an AFD, which is perfectly normal. They all mentioned the artist's name, so apparently you did not read them. Please do not start from your conclusion and then work backwards through your argument, casting disdain on the normal editing process of others along the way. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC) I never said there's anything wrong with adding content during an AfD, that's quite normal. The claim being made here is that an article that is loaded with primary source citations but has a single innocuous line in the lede overloaded with six citations from third-party sources (and yes, a couple of them didn't mention the artist's name UPDATE: Self-struck, reviewed version of article before deletion) constitutes notability. That simply does not meet WP:N. The grounds for your deletion review are based on counting !votes, the case you pled on Darkwind's talk page, instead of weighing the strength of the arguments. The deleting admin did the correct thing in weighing the arguments in determining consensus and determined that the consensus was that notability was not sufficiently established for this article to exist. --NINTENDUDE64 03:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC) Overturn and relist per SMarshall's sound analysis. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC) Overturn to no-consensus. I do not think an immediate relist will get any result other than non-consensus, , but that's a valid alternative. I think we fundamentally simply have no overall consensus about what to do about this sort of a career. My own feeling about the problem is that this sort of notability is as valid as many other popular music artists. FWIW, a more modest article without such promotional content as "Reece is working on launching her own fitness brand that includes DVD's, fitness wear, and protein shakes. " would probably attract less opposition. When I see something like that, my first reaction is to try to find some reason to remove the article. DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC) So if an article is deleted via AfD twice, the individual's PR people should just recreate the article until there's "no consensus" to delete it? If there's "no consensus" my understanding is that the previous consensus holds until a new consensus changes that. JHunterJ has been the only editor to take part in all four AfDs, so that's certainly not something that has changed in determining any sort of consensus. - SudoGhost 02:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC) If the previous article had been recreated, you might be onto something, but since the current article is not the article that the last AfD reviewed, there is no previous consensus on the current article (except perhaps for any particular stable version of it). And your link to the individual's PR people notes that those PR people are no longer involved in creating it, so that bogeyman doesn't seem particularly scary. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC) That's not how AfD works; the subject is discussed, not the article. Crap articles are kept all the time because the subject is notable. The consensus that the last two AfDs found was that the subject is not notable, the article has nothing to do with that. The PR claim certainly doesn't check out, given the contributions of those involved with creating the article (you being the exception). - SudoGhost 02:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC) And the claim to notability of the subject changed between AfD3 and AfD4 -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC) According to the lack of independent sources describing the post-AfD3 matter, it did not, and consensus did not change either. Given that you are the only editor to give keep rationales (none of which were consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines) throughout all four AfDs and are one of the article's creators, it is both unsurprising and unconvincing that you believe the article should be kept, but consensus has repeatedly determined that the subject is not notable enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia. Claiming that trivial sources aren't trivial or that Vh1 is an independent source for someone on a VH1 reality show does not create a lack of consensus in that regard, because those arguments hold no weight whatsoever. - SudoGhost 04:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC) Overturn Overturn and relist Although the article is mainly sourced to primary sources, a quick Google search turns up the following independent reliable sources.Somaya Reece Dishes on Her Absence From 'Love & Hip-Hop,' Meeting Beyonce, Not Hearing From the CastSomaya ReeceEXCLUSIVE: 'Love & Hip Hop' Star on Being A Latina Rapper: "I Just Want To Break Barriers"TELEVISION REVIEW; Basking in a Rapper's Glow, Feeling BurnedWill Somaya Be Back for Season 3 of Love & Hip HopSomaya Reece Bosses Up Vibe, in particular, appears to have written dozens of articles about her.[1] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC) DRV is not AfD part 2, DRV does not exist to give AfD arguments, and at any rate those sources would justify a redirect to Love & Hip Hop, not a standalone article; there's nothing useful to extract from those articles that could be used to show notability; gossip articles do not provide anything. - SudoGhost 20:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC) Item #3 of Wikipedia:Deletion review says that Deletion Review may be used...if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page. I've discovered significant new information. You're welcome. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC) I don't think you've read the discussion then, because at least one of those were discussed at the AfD. That is anything but significant, just an AfD argument at DRV. - SudoGhost 21:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC) Great, one of the sources was discussed at AfD. What about the dozens of other new sources I discovered that weren't discussed at AfD? I don't why you keep going on about "AfD arguments at DRV". In accordance to Item #3 of WP:DRV, I've discovered significant new information that wasn't brought at the AfD. This is one the things Deletion Review is for. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC) You searched Google, something most people at AfD do before commenting on any given article. That's not special, nor is it "significant new information". - SudoGhost 00:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC) Apparently, they didn't. Which troubles me. It seems to me that we have a huge hole in the deletion process if so many sources can go undiscovered. Tell, you what, I'll do you a solid, and change my !vote to Overturn and relist. Let the community decide now that these new sources have been discovered. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC) Fair enough. I do think that if an article is to be deleted from Wikipedia, it should be because it truly doesn't meet Wikipedia's requirements, not because editors didn't have information available to them. I disagree, however, that these present anything different in any way or that editors were unlikely to see them upon searching; most of those were already in my browser history when you posted them, according to the color of the links. They are not new sources, (they were there when the AfD was ongoing), and aren't significant in any way that would change the notability of the subject. If the subject were to achieve some notability or some source were written after the AfD, that would be "new information". I'm not suggesting that "I'm right and you're wrong", I just wanted to clarify that I disagree that these sources would warrant overturning consensus, that's all. - SudoGhost 01:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC) Those sources are terrible – they look like a blatant WP:SOURCESEARCH, especially the comment about Vibe. Your first Vibe link is a repost/content aggregation of this blog post on Mommy's Dirty Little Secret (intentional redlink). I looked at the first few Vibe search results: I found Love & Hip Hop episode recaps and a post about a Twitter feud between Joe Budden and Fabolous over Reece. This interview with VIBE Vixen may be useful, but it seems to focus on L&HH, and the VIBE Vixen print magazine folded in 2007 (going online only?), according to Vibe (magazine)#Other Editions. The AskMen page is some sort of aggregated bio. The Latina source looks like a brief interview with their online department. Flatscan (talk) 04:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC) The XXLMag.com (XXL) interview covers L&HH questions, then Reece plugs her tequila brand. I'm willing to review any specific sources that you find. I would prefer to avoid interviews unless you confirm that they are focused on something other than L&HH. Flatscan (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC) Endorse, within admin discretion. I'm fine with closers checking sources against participants' claims. I prefer "comment, don't close" if detailed analysis or novel arguments are required. Name-dropping a high-quality source like The New York Times, as User:JHunterJ did with this comment, is a red flag: if the ref doesn't speak for itself, it is likely a passing mention or focused on a related topic. "Basking in a Rapper's Glow, Feeling Burned" (User:A Quest For Knowledge's link, the article ref has the same title) is a review of Love & Hip Hop that doesn't go far beyond identifying Reece as "one of two struggling musicians". User:Nintendude64's response that "They are talking about the show, not her. ... The show she is on is significant, not Reece herself." is a standard WP:NOTINHERITED rebuttal. Flatscan (talk) 04:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC) "Actress wants role in student programs" (link thanks to User:Darkwind), The Orange County Register article, is a nice human-interest piece about Reece's work with local rec centers. The article is from 2005, and the community service has no connection to her current activities. Somaya Reece Fires Shots At Joe Budden: "He Only Fights Girls, He'll Never Fight A Man", a SOHH article inserted into the Further Reading section by User:Schissel, has a heavy gossip tone, starting with its title. The interview with Power 95.3 Orlando spends most of its time discussing Love & Hip Hop. Flatscan (talk) 04:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC) Flatscan, Nintendude said the New York Times (and the others) were primary sources. I corrected their factual error. If that sets of red flags for you, your red flag criteria need adjusting. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC) JHunter, you are mischaracterizing my statement and treating it personally yet again. You have got to stop this behavior, it is not helping your argument. I make it quite clear that the New York Times is a third party source and I quite clearly state that VH1 and Reece's web pages are the primary sources -- which make the the vast majority of the sourcing for this article. And I agree with Flatscan that namedropping a source is a red flag, as is overloading a single line with an unnecessary amount of citations as I pointed out. --NINTENDUDE64 13:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC) You are correct that the members of your list are neither primary nor blogs, but Nintendude64's reply that I quoted still stands. Going back to my "red flag" comment, a user needing to emphasize The New York Times – especially in a collection of sources and not on its individual merits – is usually a sign of contention and often a hint that someone (possibly either side) is being unreasonable. Flatscan (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC) Going back to your "red flag" comment, since I didn't emphasize it, just listed the sources I added, I agree that one side is being unreasonable. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC) Overturn and relist per SMarshall's analysis and new sources by AQFK. Cavarrone (talk) 07:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Scooby-Doo 3 – I don't think this is contentious, so I've done it. – Black Kite (talk) 09:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Scooby-Doo 3 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) While the consensus on the relevant deletion discussion was obviously clear, I think that considering it's been 6 years since the page was protected against creation, the protection should be lifted. I just want to turn it into a redirect page that would link to Scooby-Doo_(film_series)#Cancelled_third_film, since I think this would be useful. I posted this request in a couple other places first, and then saw something saying that I should post it here. Alphius (talk) 04:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.