Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 April 17

17 April 2013

Mabel Richardson

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)

Somaya Reece

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)
• 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)