Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 February 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2016 February 4
2016 February 6 >

5 February 2016

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Cite_doi/10.7326.2F0003-4819-156-5-201203060-00010 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Why was this kept? It's still orphaned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.45.121 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse closure. The closer found a consensus in the discussion that due to the very large number of Cite_doi templates, individual nomination and deletion was not the preferred approach. I suppose the template could have been deleted anyway (no one argued against it) but the close was reasonable. Thparkth (talk) 01:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Ashley Renee Jones – Restore to draft (Draft:Ashley Renee Jones). The easiest (to defend) thing to do here would be to close this as Endorse, since that wins on the head-count front. Calling it No Consensus would, I think, also be defendable. But, I'm going to do neither of those. Instead, I'm going to give the most weight to the argument made by C.Fred, as the original admin who applied WP:CSD to this, and put it out into draft space. Pretty much everybody agrees that this doesn't belong in main article space in it's current form, and putting it into draft at least goes along with that. It needs to be said, however, that there's no promise that this will ever get back into main space. It's not just a matter of editing which will make it ready, but the subject needs to do things which will attract sufficient attention from reliable secondary sources to meet our notability requirements. That may well never happen. – -- RoySmith (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ashley Renee Jones (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The deleting New Page Patroller NPP had this to say:

the only conflict of interest I see is that you're trying to create an article on behalf of the subject, based on the comments in the images you upload that indicate the images were given to you by the subject. Third, Facebook, Twitter, and other social networks are not reliable sources. Fourth, she would need to have been covered in national-scope publications. A write-up in the News and Observer is not enough to show she's significant or important. Finally, which items(s) from WP:NACTOR do you think she satisfies, and what reliable sources support those claims? —C.Fred (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

C.Fred Point One: All pages are created on behalf of something of interest.

C.Fred Point Two: The photos used are her property so the images uploaded I acquired with her permission. I told her why I wanted them so that it would be clear of my use for them. This is in line with copyrighted material and guidelines. Not to get the owners permission would have been a violation.

C.fred Point Three: Reliable Resources. While Facebook and Twitter are not news sources but social media they are still references. Reviews by the regional INDY weekly and Triangle Arts and Entertainment which includes a demographic of over a million people is certainly local notoriety. But to dis-include the News and Observer, North Carolina's largest daily circular. From N&O: Overview of the News & Observer - A company with deep roots in the Triangle, The News & Observer Publishing Co. publishes not only The News & Observer, one of the nation’s best regional newspapers, but also 10 bi-weekly newspapers offering community coverage throughout the Triangle. The company launched nando.net, one of the nation’s first internet service providers, in 1994, and today is home to both newsobserver.com and triangle.com, the region’s leading websites.

C.Fred Point Four: Websites like the Independent Movie Database or IMDB.com is a very reliable source of information concerning film and TV contributions of varying notoriety.

C.Fred Point Five: WP:NACTOR certainly proves the page should not have been deleted. Significant Roles in multiple Roles, check. Large Fan base? What is the criteria for large? Significant Cult following? Again Significant has a numerical value or a cultural definition? She has a few hundred fans and that's more people than other cults with infamous notoriety. Prolific contributions. How many contributions do you have to be in to be considered Prolific? And let me be clear, this isn't a pissing contest. This is wanting to know the criteria for creating a page.

Finally, this person is Notable Enough to be included in the Independent Movie Database or IMDB.com which is a global news credited source of reliable information.

And since the NPP circumvented the seven day discussion for challenging an immediate deletion then that shows they are over zealous and read what they want and omit what the guidelines actually say. From A7 it says : If the claim of significance is credible, the A7 tag can not be applied, even if the claim does not meet the notability guidelines. Topics that seemed non-notable to new page patrollers have often been shown to be notable in deletion discussions.

So simply because the arts and artists are not important to a new page patroller, doesn't make them A7 immediate Deletion and the Deletion Discussion should have been applied. DanWOrr (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)DanWOrr, (talk) 5 Feb 2016[reply]

  • G11 would have been a much clearer call for either version of the article, which were both unabashedly and entirely promotional. —Cryptic 19:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stand by the decision that this individual is not notable by WP:NACTOR standards and IMDb is not considered a reliable source since it consists of user-generated content. I have seen individuals with YouTube channels with a dozen subscribers be listed on IMDb as filmmakers and actors. There is little to no editorial oversight. But G11 criteria also fits as this article was completely promotional.
If this deletion review is successful and the article is undeleted, I will nominate it for an WP:AFD which I predict will close with a decision to delete. To be frank, this actress has local notoriety in community theater and has made "casting calls to Disney" which is not the same as having "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" that Wikipedia notability standards require. Liz Read! Talk! 19:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (for now). This does sound like a deletion made primarily on notability grounds, but notability is decided at AfD, not by speedy deletion. I would say that on the face of it, a reference to a "News and Observer" article about the subject would be enough to exempt it from A7 deletion. Could someone please provide a link to that? I am unable to view the deleted article (not an admin). Thparkth (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's in there, I can't find it. The version deleted by C.Fred was entirely unsourced; the one later deleted by Liz referenced, in order, Facebook, Facebook, [1], [2], Facebook, Twitter, Facebook, IMDB, [3], [4], [5], Youtube, [6], [7] (sic), [8] again, Facebook, IMDB, [9], Facebook, IMDB, IMDB, IMDB, and IMDB. —Cryptic 21:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from (first) deleting admin. The version I deleted failed to advance a claim of significance or importance. The introduction stated "Ashley Renee Jones (born October 20, 1992) is an American theater actress. She is best known for her local performances in Raleigh, North Carolina and surrounding areas. Granville Little Theater, The Henderson Rec Players, and North Raleigh Arts and Creative Theater." Note particularly the descriptive term "local" and that the three companies are redlinks. The article also included the kiss-of-death phrase "rising local celebrity"; she does have screen credits, but all as extras. Finally, note the image description on File:Jones g.jpg as uploaded by the Commons DanWOrr account: "The actress owns this image and shared it with me." While I disagree with Cryptic's assessment that the tone of the article was overtly promotional, I do agree that this description suggests that the creator of the article is editing on behalf of the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse A7 deletion, based on the information provided by C.Fred and Cryptic. Nothing that indicates a credible claim of significance. Thparkth (talk) 01:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the text did not give any indication of significance. It said that the subject is an actress with a variety of roles in minor local theatre productions and extra roles in more prominent films. Descriptors included "local performances", "rising local celebrity", "makes frequent casting calls to Disney", "local fame" and "typical starving artist". The second deleted version did include references, and it is possible to avoid A7 deletion by including references which indicate that the subject may be notable, but virtually all the references were to the likes of Facebook, YouTube, IMDB and production companies. The only exceptions are [10] and [11] and I don't think anyone is going to decide that those confer notability as they barely mention the subject's name. Looks like a perfectly valid A7 to me. While it probably was written to promote the subject I don't think it would be a G11 candidate. Hut 8.5 21:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
C.Fred can't seem to keep his false statements from a poor decision. She does have film credits as both extras but also one full length film and one tv series. Seems you conveniently forgot to mention those. I was creating a page about a person of notoriety. There are over 90 actors in this middle region of North Carolina and in my opinion their were only two that warranted being preserved, one of those was Jones. She did not ask to me to do it. But I did ask her if it would be ok. Mostly because as I fan of local theater being 50 and the subject 23, I did not want any complications from misinterpreted intentions. The photos are in the public domain but as such I did hunt down who took which ones and they agreed to my use for them. The sound track as well. They were all excited to believe that she would be included since they see her talent as well. The comments made about notoriety and promotional purposes are very ambiguous and as I have recently found in discussing with people about my attempt to make this page that wikipedia is scorned by most as irrelevant and a waste of internet space. I had never asked others for their opinion and was surprised by their collective and independent responses. Reading this gatekeeper debate concerning a page about Jones or any artist really, again citing Amanda Peterson of Can't Buy Me Love. There is nothing of substance about this webservice. With guidelines that say "significant cult following" but has no definition of significant. "Large number of fans" but how many is large? I am abandoning your service completely and joining these other people I recently talked to in their disdain for the information provided. I will however be forwarding to what Fred call an unreliable news source, his comments on behalf of Wikipedia, concerning their lack of journalistic integrity and unworthy news reliability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanWOrr (talk • contribs) 22:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy deletion is for articles that have severe flaws, at least in their current condition. It is certainly possible to rewrite an article to make clearer the significance of the subject if it were deleted under CSD A7. (Likewise, an article deleted under G11 could be rewritten with neutral text, and an article deleted under G12 could be rewritten with free, original text.) Part of my concern with the article was the depth and volume of coverage in reliable sources: I didn't say the N&O wasn't reliable, but what I said was a single write-up in a paper with a local arts section didn't show widespread or lasting coverage.
    To that end, what is probably best for the health of the article is to undelete to draft space and allow incubation so the article can be developed without the spectre of CSD A7 or an immediate AfD nomination. Once the article has solid sourcing and makes clear the case that the subject is notable, then it can go back to mainspace. —C.Fred (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Lucy Hannah (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

While I agree with the closer that there was no consensus to delete here, I feel that this article should have been relisted in order to gain broader community consensus. Reviewing the !votes on the page, I don't see a single "keep" vote that refers to an actual Wikipedia policy whose interpretation might justify keeping the article. All of them simply claim that they feel, subjectively, that the subject of the article is notable. Given the massive problems regarding sockpuppetry, off-wiki canvassing, SPA-!voting, and walled gardens in regard to longevity articles (a brief taste of which can found at the relevant Arbcom case), not relisting encourages the historical strategy of off-wiki canvassing and meatpuppetry.

If consensus is that interpretations of actual policies lean towards keeping, then I am fine with it, but the "she's old and therefore notable" argument has no basis in policy and has been rejected on multiple occasions by consensus (see the large number of similar articles that have been deleted, redirected, and merged over the last few months). I am therefore seeking to have this reopened so that more outside community members can have a chance to comment. If no one does after a second week of discussion, then I could accept a no consensus closure. Canadian Paul 18:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. Policy is only one of the factors that an administrator considers when interpreting the consensus of an AfD. If there was a strong consensus that something was notable, even without explicit policy support, that would carry weight - particularly when that feeling of notability was not directly contrary to policy. Precedent is established in AfD discussions, and policy is to some extent driven by AfD outcomes - it isn't a one-way process with policy being determined in isolation and being blindly applied to AfD closes. In this case the no-consensus close was entirely appropriate, reflected the discussion correctly, and in any case was within the reasonable discretion of the closer. Thparkth (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. AFD is not a nose-count, and this close seems to have been that. I see little more than WP:ILIKEIT-style reasoning among the keep recommendations, and policy must be weighed as part of the process here. In this case, it does not appear to have been weighted at all. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 21:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    With a very few exceptions, AfD discussions are authoritative with regards to deciding notability. Those discussions should be informed by the notability guidelines, but they are not required to blindly reflect them. A well-attended AfD absolutely has the theoretical power to override WP:GNG, WP:BIO etc. In this case, even though there is a precedent that merely living to a great age doesn't confer notability, it was entirely within the remit of the AfD discussion to say "but this particular person is an exception to that precedent - she was the third oldest ever to live in the world, and we think that does make her notable". Of course that wasn't the outcome - there wasn't a consensus for that position. But it is an entirely credible and rules-compliant argument to make, and the closer was correct to give it due weight when determining that no overall consensus existed. Thparkth (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as closer. As the nominator admits, "there was no consensus to delete". A relist would have been futile as it is highly doubtful that any progress would have been made towards further agreement. We don't just continually relist discussions until we arrive at the 'correct' outcome. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    I think it's sort of assumed you endorse your own close. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 01:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, no its not. Spartaz Humbug! 12:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake, then. I guess I just saw the fact that Lankiveil just closed it as "no consensus", then defended that close at their talk, seemed like prima facie evidence that they endorsed their own close. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 15:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    At DRV closers often undo their decisions following feedback or new argument so we never make any assumptions. Also the closer of the DRV will only look at this discussion and if Lankiveil says nothing than no assumption will be made of their opinion. Spartaz Humbug! 15:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, then. Striking my reply to Lankiveil. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 15:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was a debate that lasted more than 168 hours without reaching a clear conclusion, and had lots of conflicting input from editors in good standing. A sysop came along and closed it as "no consensus". I remember the last time we overturned a close in those circumstances! It was... let me see... nope, actually, it's never happened at all. There are good reasons why deletion discussions have an expiry date. And consensus (or the lack thereof) has always trumped policy on Wikipedia. I don't think there's any way to get to an "overturn" or "relist" outcome here.

    I do have considerable sympathy with nominator's view that longevity-related articles are an oddly separate subculture of Wikipedia where the notability rules are applied in a very different way from the rest of the encyclopaedia. I've always felt that there should be a separate longevity wiki where editors can create and maintain their articles about extremely old people without having to worry about notability, and in a recent discussion I was told that in fact, there is: here. If this was an RfC about whether to apply the notability rules very strictly to gerontology articles, transwiki all our gerontology articles over there and delete them from here, then you'll see me at the front of the queue !voting in favour.

    But this is a deletion review where we ask whether the deletion policy was correctly followed and the closer correctly assessed the debate, and the answer to both questions is unambiguously "yes", so the only word in bold I can put here is endorse.—S Marshall T/C 17:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. Note further that "failure to meet the GNG" does not imply deletion if there is a merge target, and that all non-notable supercentenarians bios can be merged to a list or table. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Draft:3G Boss (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

AFD was closed as moot because the page was moved to Draft space, but it needs to be deleted because it is being used as a WP:WEBHOST by one WP:SPA and a couple of IPs, also SPAs, and the AFD showed clear consensus to nuke. Guy (Help!) 00:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree. Bad NAC close, not responding to the clear abuse of process by use of SPAs, and the otherwise clear consensus to delete. I guess JzG is feeling inclined to be tentative, currently engaged in enough other silly arguments and having killed Rasputin last year, but he, like any admin, could have set aside the NAC close and re-closed.
On the page as I see it. It is a running summary of a reality TV show, no secondary sourcing, a NOT:WEBHOST violation by a single editor who does nothing else, and as such if it were in userspace it would be speediable per WP:CSD#U5. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete - the NAC was well-intentioned and understandable, but procedurally flawed. The actual consensus of the discussion was to delete, and the close should have reflected that. Thparkth (talk) 05:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, this should have been closed as delete, and yes, if it's moved back to mainspace or cut-and-pasted there it should be G4'd, but I expect most admins would have undeleted for a move back into draftspace afterward if asked nicely. It seems weird and draconian to forbid this outcome merely because the article author did it himself rather than to continue to argue at the AFD, especially at the prompting of another user. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:3G Boss was the right venue - articles in draftspace and mainspace are deleted by different criteria, "not good enough sources yet" is by itself usually only enough for the latter, and that's all the AFD established. —Cryptic 07:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it was a user with any history other than the obsessive blow by blow writeup of this non-notable programme, I would agree. Guy (Help!) 08:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there would be no issue having this restored to draft space after deletion, so there isn't much need to actually delete it. All the same, the discussion should have been closed as "delete", because that was the outcome, and so that G4 speedy deletion can be used if the article is moved back to main space without substantial improvement. Thparkth (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I think bolded voting summaries are distasteful, usually redundant, nuanceless little crutches for lazy deletion-debate closers. To avoid further confusion, my comment should have been read as Overturn afd to delete. Take no immediate action on article. Relist at MFD. I expect it'll be deleted there with little fuss, but I do think it a necessary step. —Cryptic 15:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016_February_5&oldid=1078420051"