Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 July 25

25 July 2012

Brocas Helm

Brocas Helm (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I strongly believe that the page was deleted wrongfully. The article, nominated for deletion for the second time, was deleted with five votes, because the posters agreed that the band doesn't meet the WP:Band requirements and isn't notable. However, trying to appeal to the deletion's initiator first, I've proved that the band fulfills the needed requirements and is, in fact, notable metal group that has a strong cult following. Still, we didn't come to a conclusion. Hawk18727 (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Ashton Kutcher on Twitter

Ashton Kutcher on Twitter (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

I think this debate is pretty closely related to User:Jimbo Wales' statements made in his 2012 "State of the Wiki" address which WP:POST to "cover all topics, even if they are pure pop culture, because if the Wikimedia movement does not cover it, the people will go somewhere else" as stated in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-07-16/Wikimania. Given that the Big Kahuna has spoken on the issue, I would like to consider the propriety of this close on two grounds. First, why was this relisted when it was 10 keep and 4 delete? Why was it again relisted when 14 more votes came in to make this 17 keep and 11 delete? Then a bunch of comments came in to make it about 33 delete and 23 keep. More importantly, since Scottywong (talk · contribs) closing rationale which states that WP:INDISCRIMINATE dominates WP:GNG flies in the face of Jimbo's "State of the Wiki" address, we should reconsider whether we want to discard the GNG-based notability of this pop culture topic. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Overturn the enormous, blatant supervote. Correct outcome was no consensus.—S Marshall T/C 07:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn Good case made. You can see the article [1] and see it clearly has references to major news sources commenting on how popular the twitter account in itself was, and its accomplishments. Dream Focus 08:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn to keep, (with the always available option to start merger discussions) -- Consensus, as the close states, was meets the GNG. Also, there were 11 sources -- including two textbooks -- cited in the discussion showing e.g.., marketing, advertising, and mass media significance of the topic, in addition to other cites in the article and which maybe found. The policy rationale stated in the close was unfortunately a supervote, not dictated by policy text, nor based in evidence and reason (as noted by the second extensive relisting comments during the discussion, which were in fact substantive comments on every purported delete vote under the cited policy, and which therefore cannot be credited). Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse: this DRV is essentially giving Jimbo a supervote, and I, for one, don't believe we should trade quality for eyeballs pbp 13:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Eyeball being people using Wikipedia, if I understand correctly? Darryl from Mars (talk) 14:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
    • People viewing it, yes pbp 15:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse the vast majority of the Keep comments argued that the article met the GNG. This is a good counter to arguments that the subject is not notable, but the fact that a topic is notable does not mean that we should have an article on it. We can and do delete pages on notable topics for other reasons. Many Delete comments however raised the issue of WP:NOT, and few people attempted to rebut this argument. It's not a case of a policy overruling a guideline, as the closing statement says, because meeting our notability guideline doesn't mean that a page should be included. Hut 8.5 13:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse If Jimbo wants to change the way we apply policy then he is welcome to raise an RFC and seek community consensus but the close is clearly a balancing of competing policies and guidelines and I strongly believe that an argument based on a guideline should have less weight than an argument based on a policy. That is precisely what the closing admin did so this looks well within their closing discretion. Arguments to overturn based on the GNG is really missing the point of DRV. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)