Taylor James – As far as the original close is concerned this would be an endorse ... except for Levivich's argument which however has received virtually no attention. On restoring the article, it seems like this is moving towards a consensus that the topic meets inclusion criteria now, but there are some questions about the quality of the deleted text. My sense is that the best way to handle this is to restore to draft, allow move to mainspace at editorial discretion to address both the emerging consensus that the topic is notable, and the concerns about article quality. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi this page was delated as another user said Taylor James is not notable enough and that Justin Bieber stopped touring. DJ Tay James, (Taylor James) has been Justin Bieber's dj since 2009 until present. He will be the tour DJ on his new tour Changes. DJ Tay James was a guest DJ for Barack Obama's Inuguration. He can be found and featued on BillboardJ-14TeenVogueBlack EnterpriseDJ CityWashingtonpost Nonetheless he travels internationally to DJ on hi own. He was Christian Loubitin's DJ for their capsule collection in Dubai HERE I would like his page re-instated! As he is notable for Wikipedia. Hanapricebc (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with allowing a recreation of the article as long as it passes our notability standards, but I don't think we need to reissue the deleted copy. SportingFlyerT·C11:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh look, another AfD closed by me in which I was neither contacted beforehand nor notified about the DRV. Accordingly, I endorse my own closure. Consensus to delete was unanimous. At a glance, at least some of the proposed sources were already present in the deleted article, such as the "Washington Post" source. I would decline draftification because it is clear from the text of this nomination that the requesting editor is not proficient enough in the English language to write an acceptable article. Sandstein 11:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The AfD was unanimous so obviously it was closed correctly. On the other hand, it was almost two years ago, so if there's new sources, there's no fundamental reason a new article couldn't be written. As far as restoring the old version, it's no better or worse than most contemporary musical artist articles, which is to say it's mostly trash. I've tempundeleted the article so people can draw their own conclusions about whether we should draftify it or require a clean start. -- RoySmith(talk)15:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest draft-ifying, from a related OTRS request it sounds like the notability of the subject may have changed but it will need review, also the requester may have a COI. — xaosfluxTalk03:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein's close from May 2018 is so obviously correct that it's trivial to endorse it. I suggest we agree not to waste any more time on that.
Much more interesting is the question of whether that close still applies. Discussion closes on Wikipedia expire. How quickly they expire is very fact-dependent---so for example, if there had been a significant occurrance that was widely covered in reliable sources, then we could rightly overturn a discussion from last week. But in cases where that hasn't happened, they last a whole lot longer.
From my observations of DRV, I've found that we usually say that a close more than about three years old has expired through the natural effluxion of time. We're usually happy to sustain a close less than six months old. Between those two extremes there's a discretionary zone and this falls in there.
DRV is rightly a conservative venue, so when we're in the discretionary zone we usually look for some kind of compromise. The idea of restoring to draft space seems quite tolerable to me. The draft should be reviewed as normal before it can be moved to mainspace.—S MarshallT/C15:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Sorry, I didn't mean to offend anyone. Yes it was two years ago, so I apologize it took so long to do something about it. If it temporarily undeleted? I can add all the new resources to it? Apologize if I sound amatuer to Wikipedia, it's because I am (haha). Thank you, I will update so it is a better artist page. Please let me know if I misunderstood the comments above? Thank you
And no COI, just thought it was notable now to be published :)
Endorse close in that it was an accurate close for the evidence presented and on a strict nosecount (that is, there were no counter-arguments presented). WP:GNG is likely not established, but I concur with SmokeyJoe here in that the deletion rationale and evidence presented was very weak to non-existent. Nevertheless, I strongly request that we:
Overturn and restore – On the one hand, how can you close any way other than delete when the delete !votes are unanimous? On the other hand, everyone is wrong.
The first delete !vote argued the subject doesn't meet WP:NMG, but did not address GNG or any sources in the article at all.
The second delete !vote stated Self prophesized 'We Know the DJ' site, owned by none other than the subject 'Taylor James', is the main source of content for this article ... Lack of third party coverage in sources ... Also not accurate statements. In the article at the time of the AfD, The "We Know the DJ" reference is only used once, and it's to reference a sentence about We Know the DJ. The most-used reference is the Baltimore Sun article linked above. Second-most-used are the Black Enterprise, HipHopWired, and Washington Post articles linked above (along with Parle Teen, though the link to the article doesn't work for me). These are definitely "third party".
Allow restoration - really, it's not that bad (I can't see the Baltimore Sun article, being in Europe). Discussion seems to have been defective, given the source analysis (I won't repeat what Levivich has already done better). I can't fault the closing admin here, but neither can I endorse it when they've endorsed their own closure and ruined at least the perception they were acting as a neutral party. WilyD06:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It does, thanks. These kind of intergrated story/interviews usually get bad raps for not being secondary/fact checked, but of course any responsible news org reaches out to people they're writing stories about, so it requires a little finesse to read it (and, of course, your biases in what you're expecting colour how you read it). But it looks like a pretty reliable source, considering. WilyD06:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews rarely fail for not being secondary sources. They fail in that they fail to meet the WP:GNG because the interview is not independent of the subject. However, an article may contain both non-independent interview in addition to independent secondary source comment. I think this is best explored in a draft. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WilyD, a closing admin at DRV is never a neutral party, since it is their closure that is being contested. I think that it is normal for closers to stand by their own closure if they remain convinced that they made the right decision, which they normally are, and which I am here. But I usually only state this explicitly if, contrary to instructions, I am not contacted prior to the DRV request. Sandstein 16:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, obviously admins believe they made the right close, but that's different from wanting their closes to stick. To the best of my recollection, I've never had one of my closes overturned here, but if I mess a close, I hope it would be overturned and I'd learn from my error. Sure, if it's not completely obvious why a discussion was closed a certain way, it's beneficial if the closing admins explains themselves, but taking a position on whether a close should be overturned or not is akin to taking a position on what the close should be, and ruins the appearance of uninvolvedness (if not the actualness). WilyD16:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Consensus was not interpreted correctly. The result was only 2-1 and both of the deleters' arguments were wrong. They said the article "fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL", but the WP:NFOOTBALL policy states that "players who have played, and managers who have managed, in a competitive game between two teams from fully professional leagues will generally be regarded AS NOTABLE. (See a list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football.) So according to that the subject is notable. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Hi! This user account is handled by the AUTO1 Group Communications Team. We would like to restore the English version of our company wikipedia entry. Previously this entry was handled by another department that was not aware of the rules and guidelines in place on Wikipedia. This was also the reason for the previous reinstatement (and subsequent second deletion) of this page. We would like to request a Deletion Review followed by the article been put into Draft mode. We would further request guidance in how to avoid marketing and advertising-leaning content while still providing useful information about the company. We believe by cooperating fully with experienced Wikipedia members we can create knowledge for the community. In our opinion AUTO1 Group is a major player in the European automotive market with enough coverage on independent newspapers etc to warrant an article in the English-speaking Wikipedia. AUTO1GroupCommunications (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
