Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 June 7: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:28, 12 June 2015

< 2015 June 6

Deletion review archives: 2015 June

2015 June 8 >

7 June 2015

Dairese Gary

This article was closed as delete in February with all of 3 delete votes. Gary is a notable basketball player that played at New Mexico and is now playing professionally. I brought the issue up with User:Joe Decker and he gave me the standard "sorry I'm not going to recreate this consensus was reached blah blah." I then provided several sources, and he hasn't responded in several days. If I recall the article was fairly well written and well sourced, though it may have been light on sources to prove his notability. In any case I believe there are plenty of sources out there to establish that Gary is notable. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moot. There's really nothing to do here. The AfD close was the only possible close given the discussion. But, the title is not protected, so if you believe there now exist sufficient reliable sources, just go ahead and create a new version of the article with those sources. Keep in mind, however, that the article will have to stand on its own merits, and if not, it can get deleted again. If you want, I'll be happy to restore the old article to draft space so you can work on it there. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, although I don't think much work is needed. But I would work on it with what sources I can find. I was tempted to create the article as a stub, but I figured why create an inferior version of an article that was deleted? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have restored this to Draft:Dairese Gary -- RoySmith (talk) 15:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as no other closure could possibly have been reasonable. As usual, there is no problem with someone recreating the article if they can do it better, nor with the deleted content being restored to draft space. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, as WP:ALLOF3VOTES does not seem to exist as a policy-based reason to overturn. Tarc (talk) 13:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend closure', as I have recreated the article with additional sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse it's always been my understanding that while some minor or development league players become notable by eventually stepping up to the pro league (and a handful might be notable for unrelated activities), merely being part of the development league does not equal notability in itself. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If the Egyptian Basketball Premier League is deemed an acceptable criteria of WP:NHOOPS, then that would be the avenue for article restoration, as the reliable sourcing is primarily trivial game log coverage. Tarc (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This may as well be closed; User:Editorofthewiki has more or less done an end-run around the DRV process by recreating the article, G4 was rejected, and I don't have the energy to AFD it. Stifle (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Does the new one have any additional sources or claims of notability? It seems poor form to simply recreate it with the DRV heading toward consensus to endorse. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree and have G4d and salted. Recreation was disrespectful of the process and disruptive. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - With all due respect that was kind of a WP:DICK move. The article did have new sources and claims of notability. You have not resolved the problem in any way. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - with the greatest possible respect to you, it was a totally dickish move to try to sidestep the drv and recreate this when it was going against you. List your new sources here and let the editors decide whether to relist the afd. In this single post you have called me stupid and a dick. You sir have less manners then my 10 year old. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Sullivan

Please see the discussion on my talk page here. I closed the deletion discussion on this individual on 30 May as delete based on the fact that although there was a technical joint/partial Grammy award as a producer on an album that won Grammy Award for Best New Age Album the subject undoubtedly failed the GNG. As this is a BLP and since WP:ANYBIO was in tension with WP:N and the WP:GNG I closed in favour of delete based on the view that (especially in the case of a BLP) a subject that demonstratively fails to meet N should not have an article based on an SNG criteria unless there is an overwhelming consensus in the discussion (which there wasn't) to give favour to the SNG over N. Given the challenge to this interpretation, I agreed to list this here for a view on whether or not it was in my discretion as closing admin to close that way. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have temporarily undeleted this page to assist discussion here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note BiH (who created the article and disputes the closure) is an undisclosed paid editor. The original version of this is very similar to others with copyvio, unsourced BLP content and promotional language. Compare this and this. Spartaz made the right decision and I see no need for the community to waste even more time discussing an issue that only a conflicted editor is disputing. SmartSE (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I voted "keep" at this AfD, based on the award, the nature of which is quite clear to me: The subject took a little statuette home for his work on the album. However, there are two major obstacles here: First, the name is very common, and google and other searches get contaminated by millions of Erics, Sullivans, and Eric Sullivans. Second, refining the search in any way only turns up a few mentions of his name in connection with his wife, the Grammy-winning artist, or the album, absolutely nothing else. Under the circumstances, I think it was within the discretion of the closer to delete it, although redirecting Eric Sullivan to Laura Sullivan (composer) would be preferable. Kraxler (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Smartse: I'm as opposed to paid editing as anybody, but what evidence is there to support such an accusation here? On the surface, it seems like a reasonable close, but I'm not very familiar with the music-related notability rules, so I have no strong opinion on how this should have gone. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @RoySmith: see here, here and here. Obviously as they haven't disclosed it regarding this article there is no definitive evidence, but I haven't found any articles that they created that don't have problems. It obviously doesn't make any difference at AFDs or here, but if they aren't going to disclose their COI, I'm going to make sure that others are aware of it. SmartSE (talk) 19:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suppose to endorse the deletion but I feel so half-hearted that I won't put that in bold. It is very helpful for Spartaz to be bringing the matter here. Spartaz is quite wrong in supposing there is any tension at all between WP:N and WP:ANYBIO. The former says "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right" and ANYBIO (part of Wikipedia:Notability (people)) is one such guideline listed. Therefore if a subject meets ANYBIO (and this will sometimes be arguable) notability may be presumed. Even given a presumption of notability it is entirely proper for people at AFD to decide that the subject is not notable. And of course they may not consider that ANYBIO has been met anyway. These matters are for the jury and are not points of law for the judge. Thincat (talk) 07:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The closure was a reasonable exercise of the administrator's discretion and I endorse it. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This bit: a subject that demonstratively fails to meet N should not have an article based on an SNG criteria unless there is an overwhelming consensus in the discussion -- this perfectly encapsulates my view. I also endorse the close.—S Marshall T/C 17:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The relationship between the GNG and the SNGs is frequently disputed. The general statement at the WP:N guideline is unambiguous: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. " The word used here is "OR". OR means OR, not AND. A relevant SNG is of equal value as the GNG, and meeting either is sufficient--unless there is a specific statement otherwise that is accepted as a guideline. The one most often disputed is NSPORTS, which has often been considered to be specifically a limitation on the GNG--although the guideline itself clearly reads otherwise (personally, I'd like to change that, but at present it too is a clear OR). Anyway, that one is not at issue here. The close was in error, because it was based on the direct opposite of the relevant established guideline. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Following through the argument however requires actually reading the SNG. In this case the linked from WP:N is WP:PEOPLE, that makes it clear what it's basic criteria is, and it isn't WP:ANYBIO, it's pretty much the same as WP:GNG. The additional criteria of which WP:ANYBIO is one are stated as somewhat less than the presumed notability on which your opinino seems to rely. "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.". So if you want to go by the precise word of the guidelines, then it's pretty clear WP:ANYBIO is merely indicative and subordinate to WP:GNG --86.2.216.5 (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which is my reasoning exactly. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I view this like the "group sex awards don't count" recently adopted at WP:PORNBIO. If the only thing the subject is hanging his hat on to get an article is a shared Grammy, sorry, that isn't enough. Tarc (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
endorse While I tend to rate the SNG more highly than the closer, even for a BLP, that's a reasonable close. If I'd have had to close it, I'd have been torn between NC and delete. Hobit (talk) 21:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus - at least one sockpuppet was struck, which puts the headcount in a dubious state. Discussion is more "keep-y" than the !votes, and the discussion turns towards the end (where it's importantly noted the Grammies appear to consider him a grammy winner, which earlier discussion was unclear on, but indicated would be more in line with meeting NMUSIC). Yes, the page should probably be redirected/smerged to Love's River or Laura Sullivan (composer), but that's no reason to get the close off (especially when a NC close is far less damaging to attempts to sort out the page in the future.) WilyD 08:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the SNG claimed in this case is one which is specifically noted as an additional criteria which is "lower" than the basic criteria which is GNG, given that nature of the award is also "questionable" as not being awarded to the person, the close seems entirely reasonable. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, with disclosure that I voiced a Delete opinion in the original discussion. There are some really overblown claims being made here to give the illusion of notability, but they can't paper over the fact there is precious little in the way of reliable sources for us to build a bio from. We shouldn't have biographies of living people on the site where we can't provide credible information backed by reliable sources, regardless of whether he might meet some SNG in some technical way (which, to boot, I do not believe he does). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Endorse. The SNG points are weak indicators, and are not worthy points to use as arguments as AfD. Everyone else agreed to delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse appears to have been solidly within administrator discretion. Regarding the broader issue of whether this guideline overrides that guideline and this conflicts with that and so on, none of that really matters if there isn't significant coverage in reliable sources to actually base an article on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 *** I  agree and have G4d and salted. Recreation was disrespectful of the process and disruptive. [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 20:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 ****With all due respect that was kind of a [[WP:DICK]] move. The article did have new sources and claims of notability. You have not resolved the problem in any way. ~'''''[[User:Editorofthewiki|<font color="#F900">EDDY</font>]]'' <sup>([[User talk:Editorofthewiki|<font color="Green">talk</font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|<font color="Green">contribs</font>]])</sup>'''</span>~ 22:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
+*****with the greatest possible respect to you, it was a totally dickish move to try to sidestep the drv and recreate this when it was going against you. List your new sources here and let the editors decide whether to relist the afd. In this single post you have called me stupid and a dick. You sir have less manners then my 10 year old. [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 22:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 ====[[:Eric Sullivan]]====