Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 October 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Deletion review‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xoloz (talk | contribs) at 17:15, 31 October 2006 (→‎[[Emmalina]]: closing (unprotect only; see extended closing remarks)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< October 25 October 27 >
Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 October)

26 October 2006

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was For a DRV, this is a complex case. Numerically, we've got a "tie" between relisters and endorsers with Hahnchen's "unprotect" stuck right in the middle. Hahnchen gets to play King Solomon today, showing the way to a compromise. I will unprotect the redirect, and allow normal editorial processes to proceed. If Emmalina is resurrected as a validly-sourced article, it may have a new AfD -- an outcome which is not offensive to common sense, since GRBerry's valid point about a change in circumstance has equal support below; if editors decide (via talk-page consensus or merely lack of interest in rewriting) to maintain Emmalina as redirect, that too is a sound outcome, consistent with the discussion below. Xoloz 17:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emmalina

Note on procedure only FWIW, I think GRBerry's point about change in circumstance is a fair one, given the AfD on Notable YouTube memes. I think a new DRV is thus not offensive to precedent, and I won't speedy close this DRV. If any admin objects to this view and wishes a speedy close, we can discuss the question, but I believe it makes good common sense to let this appeal be undertaken now, to bring the matter to a definitive close, rather than to wait a month, only for the sake of bureaucratic purity. Xoloz 16:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- User:Deiz closed the most recent AfD as delete. The nomination was "passing fad of no importance," which isn't really a deletion reason anyway, but the camps split into a few groups. The keep recommendations were based around the WP:BIO guideline, as this YouTube celeb (and yes, that does exist) has had multiple media stories about her as cited in the article. Among the delete recommendations were that the media mentions don't actually confer notability (which runs contrary to WP:BIO consensus), that she's a "Private citizen who no longer wishes to have any prominence on the web," which isn't relevant, that she doesn't meet WP:BIO (three explicit mentions, two other similar statements, none of which are true). A request for clarification shows that the closer was, thankfully, thoughtful about it, but also gave the impression that he dismissed suggestions based on the fact that this has been nominated so many times, but not any spurious arguments on the delete side. This should have been closed no consensus, if not outright keep, and the closing should be overturned and undelete the article. Originally posted by --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

However I recited his claims and added my own below. I was the one put this article up for Deletion review in case there was any misunderstanding. Valoem talk 01:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment from original closing admin I at no point took the Notable YouTube memes page into consideration when I closed the original AfD. If the deletion summary read "Redundant to Notable YouTube memes", fair enough. It didn't. If the original redirect had been to Notable YouTube memes, fair enough. It wasn't. In my first post about this on Jeff's talk page it was mentioned it as an afterthought and certainly not as any kind of reason to make it OK to delete the article. When mentioned in my comment at the original DRV it was also not cited as the reason the article was closed. There is NO NEW ARGUMENT which calls the reasoning of the original closure (failure to meet WP:BIO, keep !votes failed to address the trivial nature of media coverage) that was endorsed in the previous DRV into question. That makes this a seriously anti-procedure DRV, and risks setting a very dangerous precedent. I'm pretty surprised no-one brought this to my attention given that it has been described as an "emergency", I thought this was over which, given the reason for its rebirth, it should be. Deizio talk 03:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know, I was the one who pointed it out during the DRV. Any any case, the status quo was redirect to YouTube, so I don't know why the Memes article as a whole being considered non-notable should be an argument for overturning. Endorse in any case. ~ trialsanderrors 05:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse status quo, which is a redirect to YouTube. There is sufficient coverage in that article. --Sam Blanning(talk) 21:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist This was a tough call for the closing admin to make. I said last time that I could have endorsed any of the possible closures, and that I did endorse the actual closure. Now Notable YouTube memes is gone. I am certain the discussion in the third AfD would have been different had that article not existed. Therefore I now think that relisting is appropriate. GRBerry 22:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unprotect - If someone can write a decent sourced article about this, then let them do so. - Hahnchen 00:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI, I did not re-add this to the DRV if anyone is wondering. I had nothing to do with this, the result was typically improper, but I have no current interest in pursuing it further. My opinion, however, still stands: Overturn and undelete, the original closing was improper. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - I think if the conditions of the original delete (being included in notable youtube memes) are no longer present, the article should be relisted to review it on its own merits. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 20:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, as this was just brought through here and endorsed a few days ago. The last AfD was closed as a delete and redirected to Youtube, not Notable Youtube Memes; the fate of the latter article has no effect on that decision. WarpstarRider 22:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, close, the last DRV on this subject, no new evidence presented. Daniel.Bryant 23:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - though she may be not notable in her own right, I think there's some merit in including some details about her account being hacked, keeping her notability strictly to YouTube. Given that that information has been deleted off the Notable YouTube Memes page, there is some worth in relisting this for some more discussion. And "passing fad" is not a reason to delete. JROBBO 07:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Firstly I would like to state that their is a new argument. I don't understand how anyone can over look this. The article Notable YouTube memes is no longer there! Emmalina was a redirect to YouTube because Emmalina was mention in YouTube article HOWEVER the YouTube article itself (for YouTube Celebrities) had a link {{main|Notable YouTube memes}} to that article. Also a large number of debater in the PREVIOUS deletion review stated that Emmalina was fine as a redirect BECAUSE of the article Notable YouTube memes NOT because of the article YouTube. Therefore the argument that "The last AfD was closed as a delete and redirected to Youtube, not Notable Youtube Memes" and "no new evidence presented" holds no ground because Youtube redirected to Notable Youtube Memes and there is a new argument present. 204.52.215.128 18:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse redirect. We already decided that this subject has no real independent notability other than as a side-note to YouTube. Look to YTMND for a model of how to cover this kind of thing: small mentions on the main article for the really important fads, backed by the judgment of the relevant community as to what is genuinely important. Guy 17:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. Looks like more attention is needed. --JJay 21:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion / subsequent redirection / closure. The right decision was made. Proto::type 14:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article due to deletion of Notable YouTube memes. I was content with having the latter page suffice for this, but since the absurd decision was taken to delete it, all notable YouTubers now need independent articles. Everyking 15:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_October_26&oldid=84865485"