Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 October 23

MediaWiki:History short (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

See

• Overturn, blatantly inconsistent with consensus. If wider participation is needed, the discussion could be listed at template:centralized discussion or wikipedia:village pump, but not simply closed against the wishes of every participant. Technical note: deletion of the page will restore the default setting, and will not break the site interface. Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: On October 10, the closing admin,
  WP:CENT and/or the village pump to allow for further discussion. Cunard (talk) 06:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Protection alone, perhaps, but the fact that the admin closed the MfD again immediately after the protection makes it seem a little more authoritative and unilateral than it has to be. Since he tried to close it before, and it was controversial as someone objected to the decision and reverted him, the best way for him to deal with it would have been to ask another admin who hasn’t participated in the discussion to close it for him. Specifically speaking, closing the MfD right after he decided to protect it is basically the same as trying to revert to the version he considered right, when he himself has participated in the “edit war” per se. (By the way, thank you for notifying everyone who participated in the MfD; I forgot to do that.)
  NaSpVe :| 17:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I re-closed MfD before protection, not after it. Ruslik_Zero 18:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn I see no reason that MediaWiki space pages can't be discussed at MfD. Since the deletion of this is particularly uncontroversial, this really is process for the sake of process. Gigs (talk) 07:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard (talk) 06:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment of the closing admin. The initial change was made after a discussion on a Village pump. I believe it is not appropriate to use one process to undo results of another. In addition, none of participants of the earlier discussion were notified, including the administrator who made the change. So, I think the problem should be discussed on on the Village pump, where the initial change was made. Ruslik_Zero 08:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• IAR endorse it isn't clear to me if this is a good idea, bad idea or irrelevant. It also isn't clear if MfD is the right place for this "on paper" or not. But I agree with the closing admin that there is probably a better way forward than MfD and that's to discuss with those you disagree with per
  WP:BRD. If _that_ doesn't resolve it, maybe MfD is the right place to go, I'll leave it for people more policy-wonky than I. Hobit (talk) 15:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn, of course. As Ruslik0 says, "I think" - he had an opinion on deletion - and he used administrative buttons to enforce it. As to whether MfD is the right place - it's been used before, and will be used again, for this sort of thing. In actual practice, it's a letter "h" that basically nobody will ever see. It should be G6, not Village Pump-MfD-DrV-Whatever. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - I voted in the original thing. This MfD wasn't overturning Village Pump policy, as that had already happended in earlier MfD(s). This is simply completing a process that was already started and as such would have been appropriate for
  WP:G6. Failing that, MfD was the appropriate forum to complete the implementation of a policy already established by the earlier MfD(s). --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} via alternate account 03:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn - Closed completely against consensus. The protection only strengthens the argument against the closing admin. Plus, it says on the MfD page that MediaWiki is one of the namespaces usable with that process.— Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 19:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. There is no policy that I am aware of prohibiting nominating MediaWiki pages at MFD. Stifle (talk) 08:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Fitzgerald (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Many cites with in depth coverage from major sources UhOhFeeling (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You should probably try to address the arguments raised in the AFD concerning
  WP:UNDUE, etc. (And make it clear if you are contesting the original deletion, or my more recent G4 deletion). –xeno^talk 15:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

You should probably try to address the fact that she is notable according to basic wiki policy on notability rather then linking to an editors essay which is considered to be "advice or opinion." Also, the undue claims could be dealt with through editing and is no means for deletion, it is a means for editing.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also it should be noted that in the original AFD, after what appeared to have been significant editing to the article by the Article Rescue Squadron, most editors voted to keep the article. Then, a few days later, after it was relisted the few who were still following the article voted to delete.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per User Frank this hearing is only about whether the AFD was flawed. Looking only at the AfD, it was a procedural nightmare, it was very unfair and seemed like a mild conspiracy. Could someone point me in the direction of wiki policy of what determines whether an AfD was flawed? --UhOhFeeling (talk) 07:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're already in the right place.  Frank  |  talk  17:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Notability is a guideline too so matching N doesn't automatically mean an article if there are compelling arguments against the article. That appears to have been the overwhelming consensus of the AFD. The deleted article failed to address the "undue" & Coatrack issues identified in the discussion which clearly mandated that we do not carry a BLP as unbalanced as this. I'm tempted to add in a dash of BLP1E here as well but that is unnecessary. The nominator would be best served by writing a balanced article in userspace that addresses the material he wants to add in a balanced way in the context of the subjects entire life, works and achievements. This can then be brought here for review.
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Please point me to the policy that matches your agrument. Also, in addressing the undue issues, isn't that what editing is for? Concerning coatrack, actual policy overrides "opinion or advice." As Fitzgerald is clearly notable (I believe), coatrack is not a valid reason to delete. --UhOhFeeling (talk) 16:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, consensus appeared to be leaning toward keep til it was relisted days later. Aren't most of the other policies you point to (other then notability obviously) concerned with the editing of the article rather then whether the article should be deleted or not? In other words point me to the policy that says because an article is poorly written it should be deleted even though the subject meets notability. Also, I can't see the earlier version so I don't really know what the problem was then. --UhOhFeeling (talk) 16:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per clear consensus to delete. Also noting that I think the consensus was to delete before the AfD was relisted, although less clear. -
  talk) 18:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn original afd to no consensus and restore the version deleted at that time. The AfD was very improperly closed, irrespective of the arguments. It was first closed as keep (probably should have been no-consensus), and was relisted by the closing admin after a discussion on his talk p. at [1]. There then followed 6 immediate delete !votes over the next 4 hours and it was then reclosed as delete without further discussion or a chance for rebuttal. Actually there were not 6 votes, since 4 of the people simply voted a second time. --there were only 2 new people. Of course it's OK to offer a comment after a relisting, but not a second !vote. No matter how long the debate goes on, every gets one !vote. However, the last version of the article that was G4'd was not really adequate, and omitted some of the better references. Another try might be appropriate. See the DailyKos version. It's CC_BY_SA, so it can just be copied over--it comes from one of our previous versions in any case. DGG ( talk ) 20:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per DGG. The original close (or at least its outcome) was probably sound enough, given the extensive improvements to the article while the AFD was pending, but the precipitous second close was clearly inappropriate -- it appears to take duplicate !votes into account, and failed to provide an adequate opportunity for participation by other !voters after the duplicate blitzkreig. The Google-cached version of the article does not reflect the state of the article at the time of deletion; the Daily Kos version appears to represent the text adequately, although it did not pick up the references Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse, noting solely that the reason of interest comes from rumours of an affair about living people, and of the subject it is written: "Fitzgerald has never spoken to the media. She has retired and lives a secluded life." Undelete when those involved are no longer living. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - within admin discretion. I agree the whole closing, re-opening and then closing again wasn't handled especially well, however the overall result reflected the consensus of the discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I don't think we should assume the final close took into account "duplicate votes". Frequently when an AfD is re-listed, contributors come back to reverse, modify, or affirm their views. Here, a number of contributors affirmed their delete views. 3 new delete !votes came in with no keeps. The closer was thus more than entitled to close as delete.--
  Mkativerata (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Not without allowing proponents of differing views to respond. As DGG points out, after having been closed as keep for nearly two days, the discussion was reopened and reclosed after less than 4 hours. That's inadequate on its face. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it's the first close that was misconceived, as demonstrated by by the discussion on the deleting admin's talk page. Another admin comes along, finds a consensus in the re-listed debate, and acts upon it. I don't see a problem with that. --

Mkativerata (talk) 23:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Even if the first close was misconceived that does not excuse or justify the later open and close which is clearly inadequate per se.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse- two key concerns were that the article relied heavily on stuff written by Kitty Kelley, who is not regarded as particularly reliable, and that the article was basically one big rumour regarding the subject's alleged relationship with a US president- not an actual biography. Those are pretty relevant concerns and the people advocating keep did not in any way address them from what I can see, so I think deletion is within the closing admin's discretion. Reyk _YO! 23:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• relist as the AfD was certainly flawed. We've got multiple !votes from the same people, a close, 4 hour reopen, and close again. And I think it's not unfair to suspect the some type of canvassing, legit or otherwise, was done to get those 6 !voters to all show up in the same 4 hour block and to get 4 of them to !vote for a second time. Net effect--a highly-flawed AfD and a new listing is the only reasonable way forward. The case isn't so clear that we should IAR delete this and the AfD is so flawed it cannot possibly be taken at face value.Hobit (talk) 00:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The arguments to overturn are little more than wiki-lawyering, honestly. Despite the closing and re-opening and whatnot, the consensus to delete was abundantly clear. Salve your wounded egos and move onto the next one. Tarc (talk) 01:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you expand on your egos line? In any case, I personally see a highly flawed discussion (that I wasn't involved in so I don't see ego playing a role) that resulted in the deletion of an article that easily met WP:N. [2] is a very detailed source (in Time magazine) that covers her role as gatekeeper. [3] (People), [4] (newsmax) [5] (NYT) all touch on the rumors of an affair. That's some pretty serious coverage of what is generally agreed to be a person who wielded a lot of influence (main gatekeeper...) Hobit (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  It is entirely within in policy to have an Afd to talk about an article about a person with marginal notability from off the record rumors about their relationship with a famous person and decades old gossip column style coverage of the person. The recent rewrite shows again that the interest is not about "her" but her relationship with Bush. Lack of significant coverage about her her work shows that "she" is not notable and the information belongs in Bush's article where it can be put into proper context of his life and his accomplishments. An article about her can not give a fair presentation of her life's work since no one thought it significant to write about her in detail. All of her true life accomplishments (not covered by the media) would be overshadowed by the allegations of an affair with Bush. Real people have the right to expect a Wikipedia article on them to give a fair representation of their life or not to exist at all. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 09:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The point is, even without the affair she's clearly notable, both in terms of WP:N and in terms of the common use of the word. Gatekeeper to the Vice-president of the US is a heck of an important job--more so than 99% of those we do have bios on. And there is plenty of coverage on her for that. The Time magazine article would be an obvious starting point. To _not_ have an article because there are rumors of an affair? Odd at best, insulting at worse. Hobit (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, do take a look at [6]. We've got sources from the NYT from 2009, etc. How can you consider her to be marginally notable when there are articles on her (or mostly on her) in the NYT, Time, People? Let alone the NYT (again) almost 2 decades later? There is nothing "marginal" here about her notability by any definition of the word. Hobit (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Which NYT cite is from 2009? And which article is primarily about Fitzgerald, as opposed to being partially about a main Bush advisor (among several)?  Frank  |  talk  13:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The reason that we need to have individual deletion discussions is to work out how to handle individual articles in specific situations. Her situation is unique in that the coverage about her is related to her alleged affair with Bush and not about her. So, after careful review of the sources, it was decided by many editors that the best way to present the available information would be in the Bush article since her coverage is all related to rumors related to him instead of her actual accomplishments. An article that does not cover her real accomplishments but instead dwells on how people writing about Bush see her, is not really a NPOV article about her. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 15:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  If by "relationship" you mean "works for" certainly, that's what she's notable for. And please don't claim that the AfD was in any ways reasonable. The open, duplicate !vote, close in 4 hours routine certainly looks like an out-of-process railroad. If a discussion is the right way to handle this type of thing, let's have an in-process discussion. Of a certainly new sources exist so it's not outrageous to have that discussion yes? Hobit (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow userspace re-creation and review what really can be done on this. While this was a long time ago, the double !votes from editors who clearly should have known better poison the presumption of a good close. Having said that, I do not see a need to rush a bad bio back into mainspace. What else has gone on with her since the first article was deleted? If nothing, then maybe a footnote in another article is more than sufficient. Jclemens (talk) 04:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a user space with copies of Fitzgerald's page from the day of deletion and a copy of the article when it was at its largest.User:UhOhFeeling/Jennifer_Fitzgerald--UhOhFeeling (talk) 05:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close The article was rewritten at the time with available sources and still violated undue weight since she is covered narrowly in the media in connection to "rumors" that she had a relationship with Bush. Sound close. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 08:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the version before it was deleted? It doesn't even mention the rumors of the affair.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 14:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point of deletion discussions is for people to make calls about where the best place is to present information if it is presented in wikipedia at all. In this instance since the published sources are overwhelmingly from sources discussing Bush, then her life is portrayed through a prism radiating from him making an unbiased biographical article impossible to write from the information available. And as your edits over the last few days show, the main reason that people have an interest in her is because of the rumors of an alleged affair with Bush. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, Flo, UNDUE says "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." If 100% of the articles cover the allegation of an affair, then we must focus a substantial amount of our coverage of her in such a manner. That may seem like UNDUE weight on the (hypothetical and unproven) affair, but the perverse outcome is that in such a case attempting to focus the article on other notable activities or events not nearly as covered in RSes is the actual UNDUE violation. Jclemens (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the only coverage concerns the alleged affair, then the article is not about a person, but an alleged affair. Thus the material should be covered in a more appropriate place, like GHWB's article. –

xeno^talk 15:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

As repeatedly pointed out, the coverage concerns more then the alleged affair.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to the version right before deletion i.e. the first version here . . . User:UhOhFeeling/Jennifer_Fitzgerald. It doesn't even mention the affair. I would love to know how this version violates BLP or Undue.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 14:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, DGG's reasoning would seem to require that the article is at least relisted out of concerns for impropriety and basic fairness.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, per DGG -- the way this one was closed was entirely improper (with double votes, etc), and even the cached version shows that she is notable. Concerns about undue weight are to be dealt with via normal editing -- problems w/rt undue are not grounds for deletion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist, per the serious procedural flaws pointed out by DGG. Reading the pre-relist discussion, it is not one that any reasonable admin would have closed as delete, and hence the flaws cannot be presumed to be harmless. T. Canens (talk) 05:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, as it accurately reflects the consensus of the discussion. I would be remiss if I didn't note a long-ish discussion (in which I am highly involved) here, an RfC at Talk:George H. W. Bush. The petitioner for this DRV is attempting to add material to the GHWB article about an alleged event, going so far as to claim that an excerpt from Kitty Kelley's book is a reliable source because it is reprinted in The Times. On the one hand, that should have nothing to to do with this DRV; on the other hand, I believe it provides a road map to how and why this article was re-created and, subsequently, why this DRV exists.  Frank  |  talk  13:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frank is cherry picking the weakest argument I made. There are several other arguments I made on GHWB's talk page which would seem to tend toward inclusion of Fitz in GHWB's page. Also, I'm not "attempting to add material to the GHWB article about an alleged event." In this Drv, I'm trying to make sure a noteworthy person gets their own wikipedia page. Two separate things. Not really sure why this matters though. I believe she is worthy of inclusion (in both spaces) independent of this "alleged event" anyways and have stated as such numerous times. In response to "on the other hand, I believe it provides a road map to how and why this article was re-created and, subsequently, why this DRV exists." Are we concerned here with procedural details or making the substantively correct decision? I would sure hope the greater concern lies in making the substantively correct decision. To respond to endorsing deletion as it "accurately reflects the consensus of the discussion." This "consensus" (if you can call it that) was clearly improper. I don't think this "consensus" reflected the discussion at all. I came to these conclusions with the everyday meanings of "reflect" and "improper" in mind though. --UhOhFeeling (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no cherry-picking going on here. The edits you made to George H. W. Bush, which I removed here, were completely outside policy and were solely for the purpose of mentioning an alleged relationship with no regard for the quality of the sources, policies around here, or anything other than the allegation. Once that didn't stick, you moved into arguing that Fitzgerald has some notability of her own...seemingly as a means of then mentioning the allegation in Bush's article. I noted immediately in this discussion that I am highly involved in that discussion; it's clear we disagree, but this is not about disagreeing so much as the fact that your edits to Bush were not within policy. Your next step was to try to recreate Fitzgerald; when that didn't work you are now trying to overturn that deletion. I don't need to cherry-pick; your edits speak for themselves. Furthermore, the Jennifer Fitzgerald article you re-created is nothing more than a re-hash of the diff I provided above; it is equally against policy. If this DRV somehow results in the article being re-created, that version cannot be the one that is restored; it would be against policy there just as it was in Bush's article. Admins commenting here: please compare the most-recently deleted version of Jennifer Fitzgerald with this reverted diff from Bush.  Frank  |  talk  18:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  There is one thing I think we agree on Frank. My article on Fitzgerald pretty much sucked. I would posit though that the first version on this page User:UhOhFeeling/Jennifer_Fitzgerald establishes notability without violating BLP (Although I would still argue that NPOV requires some mention of the alleged affair but I can live without it). I really don't seem to understand most of your arguments though. Seems like you're arguing mostly about procedure and ignoring the substantive arguments. Either way, the AfD was certainly flawed.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 19:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. The original AfD had some serious procedural problems and there are new sources to consider, so a new discussion has to be the way forward. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - This seems it was set up so that all the "keep" votes that appeared in the original AfD after improvements were made to the article were discounted. New sources further establishing notability of this exist too. --Oakshade (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse.
  WP:RELIST confirms that a relisting need not be for a full seven days and a relisted debate may be closed once there is a clear consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • And the two additional (new) !votes were enough to create so clear a consensus after what had been a keep closure 4 hours earlier? Hobit (talk) 10:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion / move to userspace I think that consensus was clearly for deletion at AfD. I think that an article addressing the BLP issues could be created, but that should be done in userspace and reviewed there before another attempt at recreation. Alansohn (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Alan, Do you think the top version on this page User:UhOhFeeling/Jennifer_Fitzgerald adequately addresses the BLP issues?--UhOhFeeling (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take further conversation regarding that article to its talk page (xc) or elsewhere. As noted above in the collapsed box, this discussion is solely a deletion review regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Fitzgerald. It is not a forum for discussing a possible new article on the subject.  Frank  |  talk  16:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, given the nature of the close, I'd say it is the best place for such a discussion. A talk page in user space is unlikely to get any meaningful discussion. People often bring drafts here or are asked to produce one. Hobit (talk) 00:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what

deletion review is about. It is for determining if the AfD was closed according to the consensus of the discussion. Otherwise it would become an extension of the AfD itself; this result is expressly frowned upon.  Frank  |  talk  11:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

It is traditional to bring a draft to DrV when desiring to recreate a deleted article. Given the speedy that just occurred, it's reasonable to DrV _that_ speedy on the basis of the new article actually addressing the issues of the old AfD. Such an argument requires a draft. That in addition the closure of the underlining AfD is clearly flawed just adds to the problem. Hobit (talk) 08:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sort of thinking is exactly what turns a DRV discussion into a complicated mess. DRV exists to do one thing: review whether or not a deletion discussion accurately reflected consensus. It is not meant as an extension of an AfD. Your argument suggests opening a can of worms. Do we consider this sorely policy-violating version of the article, deleted under G4 but clearly not acceptable regardless of any previous deletion discussion? Do we consider

Wikipedia:DRV#Commenting_in_a_deletion_review is pretty clear about this.  Frank  |  talk  08:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

We try to do the right thing. When as much time has passed as this and things have changed (a new source) it is legit to create a new article. If it gets deleted as a recreation it comes to DrV. There is no other way to move forward at that point. And then the discussion must turn to the nature of that article. This DrV is a bit of a mess because there are two issues. The first is that the AfD was, frankly, a huge mess. The second is that the speedy probably wasn't valid. Does the existence of those two issues make the case for restoration weaker? Clearly not. But the confusion between the two has really messed up this DrV. To get back to the original point, both issues (AfD and speedy) can be addressed by a draft. The AfD was largely about there not being enough material to write an article not based on rumors--doing so shows that the problem has been fixed. The speedy was about the original problem not being fixed (and very much was about the draft of the article). Both require a draft to move forward. To say "no drafts allowed" is to say "we won't consider restoration no matter what" because nothing but a draft can address the issue. WP:N is clearly met by a mile. The question is if we should have the article anyways because the topic of the article is (argued to be) only notable for being part of a rumor. That's clearly false (1/4 of a Time magazine article about how she runs the office of the VP of the USA seems pretty clearly significant), but the only way to show it is to write a draft. Hobit (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Schooley (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was submitted for deletion by a user with an account created solely to harass and defame Ms Schooley. Though the user Deepsix66 claims no affiliation with Frozen North Productions, they did not make any negative comments about Frozen North, despite claiming on their userpage that they thought their Wikipedia article should be deleted. The request for deletion of Ms Schooley's page came not long after Ms Schooley posted an article on her blog outing Frozen North for poor business practices. Previously, the article existed for months on Wikipedia without any requests for deletion brought up. Additionally, myself and many others felt that the article on Ms Schooley should be kept, as she meets

ETA: Note that among Emily's notable movies are Black Eve and One Week in Windchocombe, both listed on imdb and both with significant press from sites such as Fangoria, which is a respected horror magazine and is used on Wikipedia for numerous citations. Schooley is a Canadian actress working mostly in horror, and her Facebook fan page has over 900 fans, which to me would indicate a "cult following." As well, she has been an invited guest of high-profile sci-fi conventions such as Polaris and arts/tech conferences such as Notacon, which suggest that not only are people aware of her work but that she is making contributions to the acting and filmmaking world. Misssinformative (talk) 09:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - DRV Nominator seems to be trying to turn this into AfD round 2. The closer successfully noted the consensus to delete from the debate about a lack of sources and no significant film roles to meet
  WP:NACTOR. Motivations of the AfD nom are ultimately irrelevant. Bigger digger (talk) 12:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse claims that the nominator was acting with ulterior motives are speculative at best and a severe
  WP:AGF violation at worst. The consensus was clear and the debate was flooded by sockpuppets/SPAs voting keep, which is never a good sign. Also, while not related to this DRV I did read the first few posts on your blog and every single one of them was an angry feud against people you've worked with, one of whom even took you to a collections agency! I know DRV isn't a good place to give anyone career advice but damn, it has to be said that it comes off as very unprofessional and may be a clue to why you haven't been able to find work significant enough to pass our guidelines for actors and entertainers. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Upon a Burning Body (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Album charted on

• Is this the national music chart for the US?
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • No, that would be the Billboard Hot 100. Billboard does have lots of other charts, some of which definitely contribute to notability but I wouldn't say an appearance on the Heatseekers (especially one at #28) constitutes notability by itself. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Heatseekers isn't a bad chart per se, but it wouldn't contribute much to notability. Heatseekers is a chart of albums by bands that have never made the main chart, where this individual album is coming close. The purpose is to highlight bands and artists that may be successful in the future, but haven't been so yet. It's kind of a chart of uncharted things by bands that have never charted. I wouldn't think that this makes it pass
  WP:MUSIC.—Kww(talk) 14:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn only because this was a speedy deletion, the charting appears to be a sufficient claim of significance to survive A7, and both the pro and comments here focus on notability; deletion on notability grounds calls for the standard deletion process. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• A7 may be inappropriate, but A9 would apply to the article as speedied.—Kww(talk) 23:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A9 applies only to recordings. How can it apply to an article about the band? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected.—Kww(talk) 00:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and list Per HW and Kww this probably isn't a valid speedy. Though it's unlikely to make it at AfD we should have the discussion as someone might be able to fix it up. Hobit (talk) 01:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, no longer eligible for CSD A7, and no compelling reason to keep it deleted anyway. Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]