Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 February 19: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 16:14, 22 February 2024

< 2024 February 18

Deletion review archives: 2024 February

2024 February 20 >

19 February 2024

Lunatic Lateral

I don’t think delete would’ve been appropriate but this seems like a no consensus close (which there is a big difference, as a no consensus close allows rediscussion in 2 months whereas a keep closure requires a 6 month wait.) I think no consensus was a better call because the amount and the reasoning of the support and oppose sides cancelled each other out. If a keep was to be the right call, then the closer could’ve at least provided an explanation for keep over a no consensus closure, but they did not. 50.225.13.170 (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closer here. Happy to be trouted if this was out of line for an NAC, but I didn't think this was terribly controversial to close as keep, so I a) felt confident closing it and b) didn't write any additional explanation. We have two non-keep !votes, one being a redirect that acknowledges some possibilities, and one being a very brief delete !vote that was countered by later keep !votes. Two of the four keep votes are extensive and bring up numerous sources. I don't see a reason to close this as no consensus. -- asilvering (talk) 01:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the nominator rationale and the IPv6 comment counts? 50.225.13.170 (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely the nom rationale is part of the consideration. It's just not a !vote, so I didn't tally it as one when I said we have two non-keep !votes. Likewise for a comment. -- asilvering (talk) 02:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relist. The Keep views may very well have the upper hand here, but I'm counting three non-Keep views. Even with just one dissenting opinion, this would no longer qualify as an uncontroversial result, making it unsuitable for a non-admin closure. Owen× ☎ 02:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no guideline/policy that suggests a small amount of dissenting votes automatically makes a AFD “controversial.” Frank Anchor 22:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a consensus there, but I'm not sure the two/six month window is as firm as IP50 is concerned about in their nomination here. It seems to have drifted. FWIW, I contemplated closing it as N/C as I don't think a 3rd relist was going to help, but asilvering got to it in the log before I did. I don't mind this as an NAC as the outcome was going to be retention, regardless, with a close right now and it had already been relisted twice. So while I see IP50's point, I don't see a need to overturn and reclose/relist. Star Mississippi 02:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Don't just look at the numbers, look at the timing. For the last week of the final relist there were three unrebutted keep !votes that provided evidence that previous delete !votes were incorrect. I'm not sure "no consensus" was even within the range of reasonable outcomes given the trajectory of the discussion. Jclemens (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This definitely rebutted this. Also, trajectory of discussion usually does equate to a relist, or at a bare minimum a lengthy explanation in the deletion rationale especially for an NAC.50.225.13.170 (talk) 12:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a valid conclusion of rough consensus by the closer. No Consensus would also have been valid, but Keep was valid. Overturning a close just to allow another nomination a few months earlier would be silly. I would have !voted Keep. It was notable both in the usual sense and in the Wikipedia sense for its stupidity. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Jclemens.—Alalch E. 09:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I don't see a consensus to keep, and it was probably just contentious enough that it should have been closed by an admin. Would overturn to no consensus. SportingFlyer T·C 17:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse there is consensus to keep, particularly after the final relist, such that keep was well within the closer's discretion. No consensus would have probably been a valid close as well. The three valid keep votes with very little response after the final relist (two of the three stood for over five days prior to the close) shows that keep was a better outcome. I do not think this (or any relisted AFD) should have been closed by a non-admin, but it is pointless and unnecessary to reopen a discussion solely for an administrator to close in the same way. Frank Anchor 18:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closer discretion only comes into play for admin closes. For non-admin closes, anything other than a unanimous result is a BADNAC. Owen× ☎ 18:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish.—S Marshall T/C 19:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the rule is that it has to be strictly unanimous, but it would have to be pretty close. The fact it would wind up at DRV is a pretty clear sign it's not uncontroversial. SportingFlyer T·C 19:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful and well-reasoned rebuttal, S Marshall. Owen× ☎ 20:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks for the thoughtful and well-reasoned comment that prompted it. :)—S Marshall T/C 20:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement that NAC is limited to unanimous discussions. WP:NAC explains that NAC should be avoided when [t]he outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. In this case, there was zero chance of any outcome involving the page not being kept. It makes no reference to non-admins not having discretion in such a close. As I already stated, a non-admin close on a relisted discussion is a generally bad idea. However, in this case the end-result is correct. Frank Anchor 22:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
endorse I'd have endorsed NC too. Both are reasonable readings of that discussion. NAC does not play a role here--this was never getting deleted. Hobit (talk) 06:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The close was reasonable and accurately reflected the outcome of that discussion. I don't endorse OwenX's reading of WP:BADNAC to state that any AfD when there is not unanimity is prohibited; it only restricts when it is a close call or likely to be controversial. And, based on a plain reading of policies and guidelines in light of the sources (as I noted during the AfD), there is nothing that ought be controversial or a close call about this outcome. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Evans (closed)

Michele Evans – Summarily endorsed. Nominator's blocked for DE and the community's enacting a topic ban, with, at the time of typing, unanimous support. I'm invoking the fourth limb of "Speedy closes", above, to close this without wasting further time.—S Marshall T/C 19:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Evans and her book Rikers Island were prominently featured in The New York Times. The deletion discussion centered around no independent sources available. Two independent prominent sources have been found and incorporated.

1. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/18/nyregion/rikers-island-authors.html

2. https://web.archive.org/web/20080430180657/http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/23/parker-actress-road-to-dream-tv-gig-with-robin/ PenmanWarrior (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should explain the source of your strong personal investment in this draft, because its getting to the point of being disruptive and as such a discussion about you is at WP:ANI. 331dot (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were already told that the rockymountainnews ref is a puff interview, and therefore is not an independent RS to support notability. DMacks (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close as correct. Assuming productive behavior following unblock, user is welcome to work on draft, however it should go through AfC due to the clear COI present here. Star Mississippi 01:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as the only possible outcome of that AfD. The appellant hasn't raised any arguments as to why the reading of consensus was wrong. They're merely continuing where they left off at the AfD. Owen× ☎ 01:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as the proper finding of consensus from the AFD. It isn't clear whether the appellant is arguing that the closer made an error (which they did not), or arguing that the community made an error (which isn't a reason for DRV), or saying that they have new information (which they have not introduced). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (NB: I originally nominated the article for deletion). Deletion was clearly the consensus outcome. If sources have now been found which would show that Evans meets WP:GNG, then Draft:Michele Evans can go through AfC – though I would note that the coverage of Evans in both the Rocky Mountain News article and the new New York Times article seems to be primarily based on quoting statements by Evans, and I am not convinced that either of those is an independent source for GNG purposes. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse there was only one possible outcome for that AfD discussion, and the first source shown might be okay even though it's interview-y, the second is not. SportingFlyer T·C 17:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

King K. Rool

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

As the original editor of the page, I was unaware that the article was nominated for deletion. There is nothing in the deletion criteria that mentions relative notability. Declaring that K. Rool is not notable because "he is not on the same level as Bowser"—the most well-known villain in video game history—is not a fair standard to measure against, nor does the general notability guideline make any such stipulation. Every claim in the article is meticulously cited and verifiable, with 61 citations in total—which is more than what Donkey Kong himself has. The article details K. Rool's history in great depth, including his appearances outside of the Donkey Kong video game series as covered by reliable sources.

Furthermore, by merging K. Rool's page into List of Donkey Kong characters, the character is not being documented accurately when a significant portion of his notability and fandom is centered around his appearance in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate, the best-selling fighting game of all-time.

Characters derive notability from their source material, not because they are in some arbitrary number of pop culture articles. That being said, the original King K. Rool page is filled with numerous mainstream sources and online news outlets discussing K. Rool at length. His inclusion in Smash was even covered by a local newspaper^[1] and an episode of the Netflix TV series Inside Job.^[2]

References

^ "Smash Bros. Ultimate's King K. Rool reveal makes newspaper headlines". GoNintendo. August 13, 2018. Retrieved February 19, 2024.
^ "We Even Got K. Rool In Smash! - Inside Job".

Toadster101 (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as the closing admin: contrary to your statement, the King K. Rool page was created in 2004, a full nine years before you joined Wikipedia. Your first edit to that page was in 2015, when the article had already been edited over a thousand times, making you, Toadster101, one of the latter editors to that page, rather than its "original editor".

I am sorry you were unaware that the article was nominated for deletion. The nominator did, in fact, notify the IP address from which the page was originally authored, admittedly a rather pointless exercise twenty years later, but that is how WP:Twinkle works. They also placed the notice on the article itself, but it seems you were on a wikibreak for the past six months. I find it ironic that while you complain about not being notified, you skipped Step #2 for the DRV, and failed to notify the AfD closer (me) of your appeal. Thankfully, the ever dilligent Cryptic did this in your stead.

As for the AfD you are appealing, even if you had participated in that AfD, if your argument was based on the two sources you cited above - a spot in a local newspaper (which?) and a single episode crossover in another show - it would likely not have changed the tide on what was a unanimous consensus to merge. DRV is not AfD-round-two, but even if it were, I doubt we'd see a different outcome. But by all means, let's hear what uninvolved participants think. Owen× ☎ 20:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not notifying you directly as per the recommended guidelines. I don't have an extensive editing history beyond pruning the K. Rool article and I haven't accessed this platform in over six months, as you correctly pointed out.

While it's true that I didn't start making edits until 2015, that's because the original version of the article was deleted for being badly cited and because K. Rool wasn't considered notable enough. However, the article was restored after I successfully plead my case to the editors and remade the article from scratch with well-researched citations and proof of the character's notability. As you can see, it was restored by @user:UY Scuti for "currently meet[ing] notability" less than an hour before my first edit on November 5th, 2015.

This was prior to Super Smash Bros. Ultimate's release in 2018, which revitalized the character and increased his notability significantly. For certain editors to suddenly conclude that K. Rool is no longer "notable," despite previously meeting the criteria eight years ago before the release of this major game, feels arbitrary. Has the criteria recently changed? Toadster101 (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse there's no other way to close that discussion. I've also taken a look at the last version of the article to appear in mainspace and in spite of 67 references, I don't see any obvious pass of GNG, suggesting the merge !votes weren't in error. SportingFlyer T·C 21:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as the proper finding of consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The DRV nom makes argument that could be relevant in an AfD, but the AfD is over, ending with a consensus to merge, and a merger was performed. Mergers can be reversed by splitting.—Alalch E. 09:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
relist A) the applicant is correct, he really should have been notified. Yes, he wasn't the creator per se (since it was restored) but still. And B) this is so far past the GNG it's not funny. Newsweek has an article about the character including some history of the character's creation. [1]. [2] is a RS solely about the character. [3] is another. The addition of this character to Super Smash made news in the mainstream (non-gaming) media including [4] Esquire. When the creator tweeted about the character's name and history, it was picked up by what looks like a dozen news outlets. I think we need a new discussion that is actually informed. Heck, the links provided above darn clearly show we have newspaper articles on this topic. Folks might be able to argue "game guide" or ONEEVENT or something, but "not notable" just isn't something we should be entertaining given the actual sourcing. Hobit (talk) 06:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There seems to be off-wiki canvassing concerning this DRV. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 16:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @LilianaUwU: I'm not seeing evidence of that here. What are you seeing? Hobit (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @Hobit I've seen a post on Twitter linking to DRV and encouraging to make comments. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 20:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not commenting on whether the close was right or not, but I think this is probably notable enough for it's own article based off the sources above and others that are probably out there. The character has been around for decades. It's section at List of Donkey Kong characters is huge. Should probably be WP:SPLIT. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, while in general we aren't here to relitigate the AfD, have you all actually looked at the sources? We have a 1/3 page newspaper article ([5]), non-trivial coverage in Newsweek and Esquire, and a huge amount of coverage in the gaming press. Yes, most of it is for A) inclusion in Super Smash or B) to discuss a comment by the creator of the character. But the coverage is ignored by the AfD. It's a bad AfD. And yes, the cite flooding of the article contributed to no one being able to find the good sources, but that too isn't a reason to delete. This is way over "receiv[ing] significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Recall that "significant coverage is "more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." In this case the subject *is* the main topic of literally dozens of articles, some in the broader press. @Alalch E., Robert McClenon, LilianaUwU, SportingFlyer, and OwenX: Hobit (talk) 14:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article you posted had a link which actually somewhat undermines your argument, if a blog is posting that a local newspaper reported on it: [6] I don't think this was incorrectly decided. SportingFlyer T·C 15:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I find that reaction fairly frustrating. I chose that link because it shows the article in the context of being actually printed in a real paper. The fact the the link of the picture came from a blog is irrelevant to if the article in question is reliable, yes? The article in question counts as a reliable source that has fairly detailed coverage of the topic, yes? So counts toward WP:N? I'm really unsure what point you are making here. Help? Hobit (talk) 16:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Smash Bros. Ultimate's King K. Rool reveal makes newspaper headlines". GoNintendo. August 13, 2018. Retrieved February 19, 2024.

[2] "We Even Got K. Rool In Smash! - Inside Job".

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 83: / Line 83: @@
 *Folks, while in general we aren't here to relitigate the AfD, have you all actually looked at the sources?  We have a 1/3 page newspaper article ([https://gonintendo.com/stories/315713-smash-bros-ultimate-s-king-k-rool-reveal-makes-newspaper-headli]), non-trivial coverage in Newsweek and Esquire, and a huge amount of coverage in the gaming press.  Yes, most of it is for A) inclusion in [[Super Smash]] or B) to discuss a comment by the creator of the character. But the coverage is ignored by the AfD.  It's a bad AfD.  And yes, the cite flooding of the article contributed to no one being able to find the good sources, but that too isn't a reason to delete. This is way over "receiv[ing] significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."  Recall that "significant coverage is "more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."  In this case the subject *is* the main topic of literally dozens of articles, some in the broader press.  {{ping|Alalch E.|Robert McClenon|LilianaUwU|SportingFlyer|OwenX}}  [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 14:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 *::The article you posted had a link which actually somewhat undermines your argument, if a blog is posting that a local newspaper reported on it: [https://nintendosoup.com/king-k-rool-joining-smash-bros-was-so-big-it-made-it-into-a-newspaper/] I don't think this was incorrectly decided. [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]</span>'' 15:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
+*:::Sorry, I find that reaction fairly frustrating. I chose that link because it shows the article in the context of being actually printed in a real paper.  The fact the the link of the picture came from a blog is irrelevant to if the article in question is reliable, yes? The article in question counts as a reliable source that has fairly detailed coverage of the topic, yes?  So counts toward WP:N?  I'm really unsure what point you are making here. Help? [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 16:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)