Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 3

3 December 2010

Valeri Lilov

Valeri Lilov (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am a chess fan and small contibutor to Wikipedia. A few months ago I made a major update to an article about a chess master and teacher who is very famous in my country, but because of different reasons, his Wikipedia page didn't exist and it has been deleted repeteadly. I was provided with a copy of the article in question which I reformatted and submitted for review. After that, the article was approved by Wikipedia contributors and put live on Wikipedia. Now, a few months later I received a message saying that since the article was previously deleted, it has been deleted again. My request is this article to be reviewed and if possible to go Live again. Here is the link for the improved article in question - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valeri_%22Tiger%22_Lilov. Thank you for your assistance! Chesszorro (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Is the version at User:Chesszorro/Valeri_Lilov the one you restored? And I assume your request for review is this? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • To note the request for feedback isn't approval by wikipedia, no one person can do that. As noted in the second AFD lots of references at first appears to be impressive but a closer look shows they are all from the same handful of sites, most of which he apparently works so don't have any real independance. I can't see how this version of the article overcomes the outcome of the AFD, can you point out which of the sources there are Independant, reliable and address the subject of Valerio Lilov diectly and in detail? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have been notified or asked to participate in this DRV, as the editor participating in the RFF of an earlier version of the article in question. A bit confusing. The editor is requesting a review of the AfD from July. However, the noted article was a November 30, 2010, G4 speedy delete of Valeri "Tiger" Lilov. I don't recall ever seeing this article and have no record as a contributor.

As the IP editor stated, RFF is not article approval. Volunteer editors working at Request for Feedback review the article to determine if the article is written from a neutral perspective, supported by reliable sources. I also gave a quick copyedit and formatted the available references. I am not aware of written guidelines determining notability of ranked chess players outside of WP:GNG. Of the article that I reviewed in September, many references were indeed written by organizations with whom the subject states he works, and are therefore not independent of the subject. However, nine of the references are from organizations that he is not connected with through employment. I would consider these three sources to be independent of the subject. [1][2][3] Determining significance in this manner is subjective. Neither one of us (myself and the IP editor) can help with this DRV without the ability to review the article in question. An appropriate action would be to address this article with the editor who deleted on November 30, according to the G4 criteria. Cindamuse (talk) 01:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• The page which I have updated with new sources, information, etc. can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chesszorro/Valeri_Lilov. Since the article was updated and sources are found, what should be the procedure to get this article back Live? --Chesszorro (talk) 09:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• Be patient, other people will comment here if it looks a sufficient enough change to permit recreation, that process is 7 days long. It also isn't an approval of the article, we are interested the in latest deletion and if it met the correct process,so even if we decide that the deletion was invalid since you've overcome the initial reasons for deletion, it could still be listed for a full discussion at AFD by someone and deleted in the future. It could also be subject to editing, since even if it shows that the subject is suitable for inclusion, it may need editing for other reasons. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 09:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Save for the single-purpose accounts and IPs, none of whom have continued editing Wikipedia after July 2010, I have notified all the participants at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valeri Lilov (2nd nomination) about this DRV. Cunard (talk) 10:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• I appreciate that, Cunard!  Glenfarclas  (talk) 02:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I voted to delete on the last AFD due to the article being an advertisement. This version is considerably better than the one I voted to delete, but there still are things which bother me. For example: "Lilov made a record by achieving 32 wins in a row, all from national championships, which included two victories in simultaneous exhibitions..." makes no sense at all, a simultaneous exhibition game cannot be a national championship game. The list of tournament wins looks impressive, but they are largely in age restricted tournaments which don't grant nearly the same level of notability as the top flight international tournaments. Still, I stand by what I said on that AFD that I was willing to consider a neutrally worded article on Mr. Lilov, and the proposed article is certainly a step in the right direction. I don't really oppose an undeletion, but the concerns I have listed mean I can't really support undeletion at this point either. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't think I was involved in the AFD but I can see why it was deleted. The article doesn't claim the subject meets WP:ATHLETE except perhaps for a school chess competing that I'm ignoring. On the WP:GNG side the references look poor. I will check them later when I can(currently on mobile), but my impression is they are promotional in nature, often WP:SPS. A book by an author is not independent, likewise all the things this person produces are not sources for general notability. Even the photo is a chessbase promotion. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 11:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse. As far as I can see, all of the references are still advertisements for this person, not neutral articles about him. I do not see any significant improvement between the sourcing on the article I voted to delete and this article; this one seems to have the same lack of independent sources that the earlier version did. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse well, to me this chessplayer is just not strong enough to be notable. SyG (talk) 13:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment It's a bit hard to remember the previous version without having the powers of an admin, but this may be a bit more neutral (except for 'renowned'...). I still don't think the references comply with WP:RS sufficiently, and his status in chess terms is still not high enough to give notability of itself. He's young yet, and I have no doubts that there will be an article on him before many years have passed. If he's as good a teacher as is claimed, the reliable sources should be forthcoming before long too. (He is definitely more notable already than one chap who put an article up about himself recently - a chap who played in the third level league in his town club and was going in for a competition...) Peridon (talk) 13:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse Generally chess Grandmasters are considered notable. The next lower level is International Master, and they are not considered notable unless they are also a well-known chess author, coach, composer, arbiter, etc. This person is at the next level below that. After the original article was deleted, Valeri Lilov was barred from being recreated so it was Valeri "Tiger" Lilov to get around the ban. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse. I originally PRODded Valeri Lilov and voted to delete in both AFDs. Looking at the article that's now offered, I remain of the view that, despite its polished appearance, it is still primarily an advertisement for a non-notable chess player's online lessons. References are to his own websites, along with chess databases and the like; the photo is the one from his official website (obvious autobio concerns), and I just don't see any evidence that he has received significant coverage in multiple independent sources.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 02:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments. However, I think the article was updated precisely and placed as a project at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chesszorro/Valeri_Lilov. It has updated information, sources, etc. We can consider that there are at least three sources to be independent of the subject. [4][5][6]. Please, let me know what else important requires to be updated.--Chesszorro (talk) 10:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Worst Actor Golden Raspberry Award winners

Category:Worst Actor Golden Raspberry Award winners (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I was not a party to the discussion--I didn't even know it was under review--I don't really have a dog in this fight. As with most AfD/CfD discussions--they all happen in a small, backroom world populated by a microscopic few. O.K. I've participated in quite a few of these discussions, but it always seems like the result is predetermined. We are doing the WWE version of legitimate discussion.

As I see this specific discussion, I see 8 votes to keep vs 8 votes scattered supporting three different other options . . . yet the decision was to delete. Where is the consensus in that? In fact, while the vote was at 7 to 5 they re-listed the discussion long enough to call up a few more deletionists to finally even the score. Its like George Carlin's "Illusion of Choice." Who really is making these decisions? And why is the judgement so often in favor of deletion, or the word I choose to use "destruction" of somebody else's good intentioned hard work? Trackinfo (talk) 00:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Copied from WT:DRV. lifebaka++ 01:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Note This is not the same as the categories discussed below on the 1 December DRV. Cirt has specifically requested that this be kept separate; please discuss this as a separate issue. Jclemens (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion The keep !votes are mostly not based in policy/guidelines, and therefore carry less weight than the guideline-based delete !votes. Please remember that XfD is not a vote and that !votes have rationales for a reason. Counting votes is not consensus. If the results seem predetermined, that's because policy determines the outcome, for the most part. Of course, policy can change. --NYKevin @751, i.e. 17:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)