Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 January 16

NAC) – Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 09:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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

I initially prodded this article because it was an unsourced BLP. The prod was removed. I brought it to AfD with the argument that it was an unsourced BLP. There was some wrangling about WP:AUTHOR, which occupied most of the actual discussion. Towards the end of the debate I conceded that while I was pretty far from the satisfied with the "independent reviews" upon which this and so many of our other comic book articles are based, WP:AUTHOR had strictly speaking been met. I went on to note that despite this, the article still contained no independent reliable sources and we had no verifiable biographical information about the subject. I raised the point that the only verifiable information we have about this person is that her name is not Nari Kusakawa. There was no further discussion before Armbrust closed the discussion as "keep". The article still contained no independent reliable sources at that time.

I challenged Armbrust on his talk page about this, and after he'd closed the debate as "keep", he began to edit the article to add one source from the AfD and to tag the other concerns I raised. However, despite this post-AfD rationalisation, the article still contains no verifiable information about this person. The only sources provided are about her corpus of work, and therefore, while we might have sources sufficient for list of works by Nari Kusakawa, my position remains that we should not have an article about the person who isn't called Nari Kusakawa. —S Marshall T/C 19:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AfD must only determine if a person meets the criteria of notability. Since in your last AfD-comment you have yourself admitted that the subject passes WP:AUTHOR (and this after you had wrote in a previous comment you were ready to whithdraw the nom if the subject had met that criteria...) and since you have moved into a new proposal of renaming the article list of works by... I don't see in what Armbrust was wrong, as AfDs are not "Articles for renaming" (we could discuss this in the article's talk page, and I have no prejudice against your idea) nor "for cleanup" (if "the article still contains no verifiable information about this person" you can delete it by yourself, we don't need an AfD for this). Cavarrone (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- When you say AfD must only determine if a person meets the criteria of notability, I disagree. Many AfD debates focus on notability but there are other considerations. In this one, we've met something unique: a living person who meets a specific notability guideline and yet we have no verifiable biographical information at all.—S Marshall T/C 20:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cavaronne is, of course, extremely wrong in their interpretation of what AFD is about. Verifiability, notability, etc, are all in the purview of AFD. Indeed, if this was an unsourced BLP - even if the person appears notable - then the only possible AFD close is delete (

BWilkins ←track) 22:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

My point was about the fact, as I subsequently wrote, that AfDs are not for renaming nor for cleanup. I see your point, but as far I can see, being the subject notable, the problem is addressable and the S Marshall "project" of writing an article about the corpus of her works and redirect and delete the current article could be a reasonable solution. - Cavarrone (talk) 23:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, wrong: the real meaning of AFD is "articles for discussion". Indeed, many articles are "saved" by cleanup and they can also lead to renaming (

BWilkins ←track) 01:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Again, I never said that an article could not be "saved" by cleanup or renaming, I said we don't NEED an AfD for this. I'm moving forward, and the AfD closing does not prejudice, in any way, that we cleanup, improve, rewrite or rename the article. - Cavarrone (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - closer correctly read consensus of the discussion. Granted, there are severe problems with the article, but that's not for DelRev to address. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse own close. There was clear consensus in the discussion, that the subject of the article meets
WP:AUTHOR. Event the nominator agreed. Retitling and rewriting an article is outside of AfD's scope. The talk page exists for such purposes too. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 20:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

This AN/I thread is also relevant.—S Marshall T/C 22:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Overturn and delete This remains an unsourced BWilkins ←track) 22:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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