Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 August 3

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 2012 August 2
2012 August 4 >

3 August 2012

  • WP:RPP. The discussion here has turned into a discussion about the notability of the article, and results in no consensus as to whether the article should be unsalted. If a DRV discussion results in no consensus, closers may relist the article at AfD at their discretion. I choose to do so because the article has not previously had a proper AfD discussion in which the subject's notability could be discussed. If the AfD results in a decision to delete, the page should be re-salted. –  Sandstein  13:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Liam McEwan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I am requesting desalting of this article name. The article, in various other guises, has been

A7 speedy deleted numerous times over a number of years, and subsequently salted. However, there is a new version which seems to assert notability, and is backed up by reliable sources parked at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Liam McEwan. I have not contacted the administrator who I presume salted this, PMDrive1061, as they are marked as retired and have not contributed to Wikipedia for over a year. Ritchie333 (talk) 13:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

I am not convinced that a
Shorty award proves notability , and I certainly would not consider that it does for one in a category where the subject was one of the 6 nominees and all six received first place, as here. The only other third party source in the article, the NZ Herald, is a RS, but the article is just about the station where he broadcasts and does not even mention him. I think that until there are better sources, the only reasonable conclusion is Not Yet Notable. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Like DGG, I would not consider that this particular award shows notability. The sources in the AfC article are not sufficient either - the NZ Herald one does not mention him, 4 others are all from his radio station - and all appear to be "routine" coverage for a radio station anyway - and the final one is the Shorty-connected one, which is not sufficient for our purposes. Leave salted PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsalt - Salting is a way to prevent the repeatedly recreation of an article without concern for its prior deletion history, process, or consensus. Listing the topic at Articles for creation demonstrates a desire to put the topic back into the Wikipedia machinery, seek consensus, and address its prior deletion history. Unsalt. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. I don't think the topic Liam McEwan meets
    WP:GNG. I didn't find anything on Liam McEwan radio host. Also, the first of two sources listed at Articles for creation that is independent of the topic, Battle of the Auckland airwaves doesn't mention Liam. The Shorty Awards source could support the text, "Liam McEwan was nominated for a Shorty Award,[1] but that's not enough information for a stand alone Wikipedia article. He's in radio, so it is very odd that someone hasn't written information about him. Given his opportunity to come to the attention of others to write about him, he seems less GNG notable than others who are not in the public eye. If the topic is unsalted, it should be resalted immediately if any of the prior problems reemerge. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Leave Salted or Re-Salt if necessary. Subject is not
    AfC, it would immediately be nominated for deletion, unnecessarily taking time and effort better devoted elsewhere in WP. DocTree (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Unsalt. This is a wiki, and a good faith user wishes to write an article in this space. That's sufficient.—S Marshall T/C 22:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep salted. If even DGG doesn't think there's an article to be written here, there probably isn't. To unsalt and move the AfC to mainspace when it will almost certainly be again deleted at AfD is a pointless waste of time and resources. T. Canens (talk) 03:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep salted - I just checked the new draft (and marked it as 'being reviewed' by the way) and still don't see enough
    WP:GNG. mabdul 11:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • List at AfD. http://twitpic.com/900rgg shows that he has had direct coverage in a newspaper. There is more than sufficient claim to beat WP:CSD#A7. This subject has never subjected to an AfD, and given the amount of interest, if someone wants a discussion, we should let them have it. I agree that the sources would be probably judged as not meeting the
    The Flea 88.2, where the subject already has some coverage, but less than what is can be seen, sourced, at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Liam McEwan. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Allow recreation but list per SmokeyJoe. This is no longer a speedy, so let it try at AfD. Hobit (talk) 12:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave salted, the result is or at least should be clear here. A valid unsalting request would include a list of the independent and reliable sources covering the article subject in depth. It doesn't seem such exists here, and throwing it through AfD or otherwise is bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. If the sources still don't exist, still disallow, meme or otherwise. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It sounds like you are accepting that this DRV discussion is serving as an AfD discussion? If not, then accept that there has been no deletion discussion. What you are therefore advocating is that administrators be allowed to speedy delete on their judgement of sources and WP:N. This denies the ordinary editor their role in running the project. You are headed the wrong way.

    “Leave salted” also seems to ignore and rule out my point that this title probably should be a redirect to

    The_Flea_88.2 (a decision that should be made editorily, or at AfD, but not at DRV). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Bianca Jade (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

She is a notable person: a latina entrepreneur who has devoted her life to women's fitness and helping women to prolong their lives with the new concept of fitness fashion & trend. She has been written about in many newspapers, magazines, websites, blogs and appeared on tv furthering this modern-day fitness movement. She is becoming a household name in women's fitness and comments about her not being pulled up on Google searches or having a relevant references from respectable and credible news sources is wrong because there is plenty of evidence in favor of her notability. Her page does wikipedia lots of good because it does women lots of good because it does th ehealth & fitness community a lot of good. But most of all she is NOTABLE. ShanaScala (talk) 05:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_August_3&oldid=1138281574"