Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 17

Chris Whitcroft – BLP1E is not a speedy criteria. Restored and renominated to resume the AFD discussion – Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I have speedy deleted this article under the WP:BLPDEL because of WP:BLP1E. The article is mainly about the subject's automotive accident, and is poorly sourced. The creator of the article disputes this deletion and its rationale. w^L^{<speak·check>} 21:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Endorse. Page is pretty clearly inappropriate per WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E but I don't read WP:BLPDEL to call for speedy deletion in cases such as this where all the controversial info has a reasonably reliable source. A local newspaper story is not enough for WP:N, but, IMHO, is enough to exceed the speedy bar. On the other hand, this is a quite clear case unless further and better sources are forthcoming. Keeping in mind the spirit of BLP and its admonition for speedy resolution, I do not favour restoration and a new AfD but would prefer that this remain deleted unless a consensus for keeping is formed at this DRV. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong overturn as out of process. Speedy under BLP only applies when the article contains solely unsourced negative material, or meets CSD G10, pages that disparage or threaten their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose. Otherwise it goes to prod or afd. I do not consider the article qualifies for speedy under those grounds. I am not sure it will hold be accepted at AfD, but that is another matter, I do not endorse attempts to extend the reach of admin discretion in speedy beyond the existing rules, though of course we can change them; I doubt there would be consensus to add BLP 1E as a reason for speedy, but go ahead and ask on the talk page there if you think we really need it. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore. Like DGG, I don’t see WP:BLP1E as a ground for speedy deletion. DGG has explained why WP:BLPDEL does not call for speedy deletion here. I can’t read it into A7 either as A7 requires a credible claim for notability. A person who is notable for one event is still notable. WP:BLP1E is not an exception to notability; it is an exception to including an article on a person in Wikipedia. And nor should WP:BLP1E be a ground for speedy deletion. Its application is rarely clear cut, by itself it doesn't involve issues that could harm the subject of the article (thus not requiring speedy resolution), and so should only be done through consensus (ie inferred consensus by prod or actual consensus by AfD). --Mkativerata (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. Not a BLP violation from what I can see, and not an A7 candidate either (although I don't think that's been raised as an issue). Stifle (talk) 09:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. WP:BLP1E was the reason given in the AfD for speedy deletion, but this is not (an in my opinion should never be) a speedy deletion criterion. WP:CSD#G10 was the reason given in the deletion log, but G10 requires that the page disparage the subject and serve no other purpose, however the article was written in neutral language and did not threaten or otherwise disparage the subject. There was also a credible claim to notability (that was acknowledged by the AfD closer by virtue of the WP:BLP1E tag as others have said), so A7 would not have been an appropriate deletion either. Where it is suspected that someone is notable only for one event, then this should be investigated at AfD as they might also be notable for another event, and even if they aren't merge and/or redirect outcomes to similar discussions are common. Thryduulf (talk) 10:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per DGG and others--Cube lurker (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy deletion G10 was not applicable in this case. Alansohn (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Annika Väisänen – Closure endorsed. NAC. – Tim Song (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Comment: Deleted for the reason that all voters did not know how to use the wiki codes? ?!

That is not a reason good enough since the votes were 4keep vs 4 delete.
Despite a large number of arguments put forth by both sides for 7 days, it's quite clear that no consensus was going to be reached there.
Therefore, the result was no consensus. Discussions which fail to reach rough consensus default to "keep".

Comment:The person who proposed the article for deletion went to delete it herself as G6 although that was not the reason she nominated it. I guess she could not come up with a REAL reason to delete as the voting was so clearly towards keeping.

Comment:The article used several realiable references:

Heikkinen, Mikko-Pekka (19 May 2000). "Suomalainen roomalainen". Helsingin Sanomat (Newspaper). {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
Merilä, Kai (25 May 2000). "Lainasin vartaloni filmitähdelle". 7 Päivää (Magazine). {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Väisänen, Annika (3 Jan 2009). "Näkymiä Colosseumin aitiosta". Helsingin Sanomat (Newspaper). {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Lotila, Sami (1 January 2010). "Pidä Perttu enää en häntä kaipaa". Hymy (Magazine). {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

2 other magazine articles about her (articles are not online): ↑ Maija Tiensuu: Ihanasti Boheemi. Deko magazine, 1.4.2008, s. 52-57. Yhtyneet kuvalehdet Oy. ↑ Annika Väisänen: Maailma kotona. Trendi magazine, 1.2.2008, s. 98-101. Forma —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linnea78 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC) 2 more articles where Vaisanen has been quoted (the other is a jazz album, which she reviewed and the second is an art exhibition).: http://www.cymbidium.fi/index.php?page=Helsinki_Cooler_vol_3 http://www.totuusvaitehtava.fi/omaelamankerrat-ja-kulkurunot Linnea78 (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure First of all, the nominator has not been entirely truthful above. The AfD nominator did not delete the article; the article was nominated for deletion by FisherQueen (talk · contribs) and deleted by Jayjg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who closed the AfD. Moreover, the debate was not really split as Linnea78 said above. Rather, the only participants who supported keeping the article were Linnea78, an IP that appears to be Linnea78 while logged out, and another account (Apollo789 (talk · contribs)) that appears to be Linnea78's sockpuppet). To top it all off, Linnea78 appears to be the subject of this article in real life – a sure conflict of interest. Secondly, there was a clear consensus in the AfD to delete the article as failing WP:BIO. One editor voted to userfy, but that idea did not garner any support. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The votes were 4 delete, 4 keep and one neutral userfy which would go for the keep direction..

I am using a public computer, I have no say over what other people might vote on it.

'Comment as for previous user about the article as failing WP:BIO... If you would READ the article, you would see that it is not the case! Notability: For: WP:CREATIVE

Creative professionals... She has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, as a Director and organiser. It was covered by BBC News. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.145.198.14 (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:There was a keep vote from 213.143.167.10 also, which you did not even notice aparently?.
Comment:ALSO, Musamies' delete vote should not even count, as it did not make a case at all! --Linnea78 (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse A very low quality AfD discussion, but one in which it was more than open to the closing admin to read a consensus to delete. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"""Overturn and restore"""" The article clearly passes WP:WEB which was the reason for the nominating it in the first place by FisherQuuen because "she did not understand Finnish!? Funnily enough at the end of the discussion FisherQueen, however invented another mickey mouse reason for deletion. She tried G6 because she did not come up with anything else?

Comment This is what the next deletor said:( Jayjg) The arguments made to delete were based on policy/guideline. The arguments made to keep were mostly not. Consensus is measured based on the statements of those who make policy/guideline-based arguments. It is not a raw vote. Jayjg (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment:This is not right, because some users, are not aware of these policies and codes you are supposed to add to your comment. --Linnea78 (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
endorse Reasonable conclusion: the references presented did not amount to notability, (at lerast going by the Google Translate versions). Such was the consensus, and it was correct. DGG ( talk ) 01:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC) .[reply]
Note. I have, literally, no idea what Annika is talking about in her certainty that I have deleted this article under G6. I didn't delete it at all, and no one mentions G6 in the deletion discussion- I don't see how the 'routine housekeeping' speedy deletion criteria would even be relevant- and it doesn't appear on the deletion record of Annika Väisänen, either. She might be confusing this article with Annika Suvi Johanna Vaisanen, created by another apparent sockpuppet, which was deleted under G4, recreation of a page deleted through AfD, but I didn't delete that one, either. I hope no one minds, but given that this user is using multiple accounts inappropriately and trying to use Wikipedia for self-promotion, I've taken the liberty of blocking her and both of the sockpuppets I know about. Of course that shouldn't prejudice this discussion, and if anyone thinks this article really should be restored and improved, I think that's great- I'm a fan of finding a way to save a marginal article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion log does show a G6 deletion by you, however it's in relation to the moving of the page, so it looks like you deleted a redirect or some such with the end result being the content being under this title. i.e. it looks like the editor is confused in their understanding of the deletion log. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes! Thanks; I had forgotten that part- that's how I noticed the article in the first place, when she was creating another copy elsewhere to avoid the 'harassment' of other users editing her work. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. It appears to have been deleted according to proper consensus. And in an event where DGG supports deletion of an article, it sends a strong signal that the deletion was correct. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It makes me very uncomfortable when someone uses me as the outer edge of acceptability--there are a few fields where I might be near that, but equally some where I am more deletionist than the average, as with many local organizations and most non-fiction books. DGG ( talk ) 22:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was the one who voted userfy because I was ready to volunteer to cleanup "self-promotion" mentioned above. Article was clearly borderline case where some people got distracted from main purpose of Wikipedia, which is writing articles, not users fighting with each other. Finnish is one of my primary languages so I could have easily verified what the "online" references did actually tell about Annika Väisänen. Monni (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per DGG and Stifle. Proper AfD closure. GlassCobra 17:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as consensus of policy-based comments during AfD. User who filed this DRV to overturn the delete had previously waged a campaign to have article deleted (to the level of repeatedly blanking it often enough that I blocked her for that).[1] DMacks (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would be interested to hear, which one of Vaisanen's references user Monni thinks was not about her? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rita75 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Some of the so-called references were articles written by Väisänen, not articles written by others about her. Articles written by herself contribute nothing to notability of her, but articles written by others about her do. Monni (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.