Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 December 18

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

)

I am closing this early as it seems non-controversial, and was requested by Valoem. ANyone is free to use A7, or AFD Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

Incorrectly tagged for speedy deletion Prisencolin (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This was deleted under
  WP:G12 probably doesn't apply here. So, assuming my understanding on the copyright / licensing issues is correct, I'd suggest restoring the article and listing it on AfD for a proper discussion. Normally, I would temp-undelete this for the discussion, but I'll leave that to somebody else who is better versed in copyright rules. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I asked the editor who deleted the article and they said it was also for
    WP:G7 (non-notable organization).--Prisencolin (talk) 00:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Overturn and list at AfD. I was the ed. who nominated for deletion, and I made the error of not noticing the site was copyright compatible. The deleting admin could have addedA7 to the closing rationale, or substituted it, but did not do so, and therefore is justifying an incorrect close after the fact, having made the same mistake I did. I do not consider it falls under A7, because it asserted the first place finish in a tournament. I am not familiar with our specific practices for e-sports, and do not know what tournaments are considered significant for notability; therefore I have no idea what the conclusion would be at AfD. I consider the article wildly excessive for WP in terms of over-detail, perhaps even to the extent it could be considered promotional for the team. DGG ( talk ) 17:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are currently no specific guidelines for esports/competitive gaming and
    WP:NORG--Prisencolin (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• If the person who nominated the material for deletion is now recommending an overturn, then it doesn't seem necessary to make everyone wait 168 hours before we reach the utterly obvious conclusion and send this to AfD. Hilarious though it is to use the term "eSports" for people who're playing video games from their armchairs, I would recommend "competitive video gaming" as the term more likely to gain acceptance on Wikipedia. (Yes, I know, chess is a sport nowadays. I think that's bizarre and humorous too.)—S Marshall T/C 12:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kay Purcell (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I came across this via speedy deletion as a re-creation of an article deleted at AfD. However a look at the actress's page shows that she played substantial roles in multiple notable series, most specifically Cynthia Dagger in

• Also pinging
  (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Thanks. I don't have an opinion on the notability or other merits of the article in its recreated version. The versions deleted as the result of the AfD, however, should only be restored if the result of this review (or of a new AfD, which I believe would be the proper forum for a discussion on the merits) is to keep the recreated version. Because this request has not, as far as I can tell, made to review a prior deletion decision, I recommend that this review request is closed and that you, Tokyogirl79, re-submit the article to AfD for a (re-)evaluation of the subject's notability based on the new article.  Sandstein  10:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• It actually is a bit of a review of the prior deletion, a little bit anyway, since I don't think that the prior AfD should have closed as a delete. Her roles should have been enough for her to pass NACTOR at the prior AfD and there were sources out there - the majority of the stuff I've put in the article existed at the time of the last AfD.
  (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• In that case, I endorse my own closure, because deletion was the clear consensus outcome. Merely disagreeing with the outcome isn't sufficient grounds for deletion review. The article - or at least the versions of it deleted pursuant to the AfD - should therefore be re-deleted.  Sandstein  10:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• However I feel that the closure was faulty. The argument was that the sources were local and that they weren't enough to show notability, however Purcell had substantial roles in several TV shows and there were sources out there that focused on her. That some of them were local doesn't really mean that they should all be discarded. I'm aware that local sources do tend to be greatly depreciated and if she were only known for local theater performances I'd see that argument, but Purcell had also starred in several notable television shows. I feel that she did pass notability guidelines and the article should have been kept. The sources weren't easy to find, but they weren't exactly difficult either.
  (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Basically, my argument here was that Purcell played in multiple notable productions in some highly visible roles. There were also sources in the article and others available via a Google search. Some of them were found, some weren't. I don't think that a source being local should automatically disqualify them as a usable source and I feel that theater production reviews do count towards notability if the actor held a major role in the play being reviewed. Many theater reviews will only mention their actors - even leading actors - in passing in favor of summing up the performance as a whole. Sometimes reviews might not even mention the actors at all, as in the case with the Edinburgh Evening News review I just added to the article. (Purcell's performance in the play is backed up with a second source that quotes the EEN.) I feel that there was substantial evidence to show that she passed NACTOR.
  (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• That may or may not all be true, but it doesn't matter here at DRV. The question here is, was consensus based on the opinions expressed in the discussion correctly assessed? As AfD closer, I try to not form an opinion of my own about whether a subject is notable, or else I might be unconsciously inclined to "supervote". What I do is look at the arguments that are expressed in terms of applicable policies and guidelines, and check whether they amount to a consensus to delete, which was the case here. If you want the notability of this person re-examined, you need to go to AfD again.  Sandstein  10:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• (sighs) OK, I'll take it to AfD then.
  (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Template:Anthony Marinelli (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Interpreted the consensus incorrectly. The Film project MOS specifically states that Actor navboxes are not welcome in film articles and a prior RfC to further narrow this scope to Directors failed. RfC This TfD was a non-admin close with a vote count of 6 Keep v 4 Delete, including the nominator and creating editor. In addition to the desire of a certain group to limit navboxes to one occupation (directors), which is

The sticking point here is not the deleted template, it is the fact that there is no public facing indication of the contrived "directors only" consensus. The "consensus," is based upon a few undefended deletions and contrary to the RfC, it was presented to me via TfD, with no talk page discussion, after the work had been done and the template placed on the relevant articles. This errant close will undoubtedly be used to muddy the water on an already decided RfC. I'm not asking that the template be restored, I am looking for an evaluation of the TfD (in relation to the prior RfC) and a clarification in the MOS if necessary. --Paid Editor-- 009o9 (talk) 02:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Vacate non-admin closure;
  WP:DPR#NAC states that close calls and controversial decisions are for an administrator to make. Stifle (talk) 09:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]