Wikipedia:Deletion review
 |
| Deletion discussions |
|---|
|
| Articles |
| Templates |
| Files |
| Categories |
| Redirects |
| Miscellany |
| Speedy deletion |
| Proposed deletion |
Deletion Review (DRV) is a forum designed primarily to appeal disputed speedy deletions and disputed decisions made as a result of deletion discussions; this includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.
If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.
Purpose[edit]
Deletion Review may be used:
- if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
- if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
- if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
- if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
- if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.
Deletion Review should not be used:
- because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment;
- when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination;
- to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
- to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
- to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
- to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
- to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests); or
- to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed).
Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.
Instructions[edit]
Before listing a review request, please:
- Discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion Review. See § Purpose.
- Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.
Commenting in a deletion review[edit]
In the deletion review discussion, please:
- Endorse the original closing decision; or
- Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
- List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
- Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
- Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.
Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.
The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.
Temporary undeletion[edit]
Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by non-admins. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.
Closing reviews[edit]
A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented. If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate. Deletion review discussions may also be extended by relisting them to the newest DRV log page, if the closing admin thinks that consensus may yet be achieved by more discussion.
Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint - if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't).
Steps to list a new deletion review[edit]
 |
If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a prod, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. |
| 1. |
Before listing a review request please attempt to discuss the matter with the closing admin as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, please note in the DRV listing that you first tried discussing the matter with the admin who deleted the page. |
| 2. |
Copy this template skeleton for most pages:
{{subst:drv2
|page=
|xfd_page=
|reason=
}} ~~~~
Copy this template skeleton for files:
{{subst:drv2
|page=
|xfd_page=
|article=
|reason=
}} ~~~~
|
| 3. |
Follow this link to today's log and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the deleted page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the page should be undeleted. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example:
{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
|
| 4. |
Inform the administrator who deleted the page, or the user who closed the deletion discussion, by adding the following on their user talk page:
|
| 5. |
For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach |
| 6. |
Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion. Use |
Active discussions[edit]
15 December 2016[edit]
13 December 2016[edit]
User:B3430715/Userboxes/privacy[edit]
Not sure what to make of this deletion. The warning box at WP:UBX/POLITICS may address this, but that wasn't invoked. Rather, WP:G10 was invoked. G10 addresses attacking or harassing a person. Uncle Sam is not a person, nor is the U.S. government. Additionally, someone living in Canada should at least be aware that those of us living in the United States cherish the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as a vital link to our claim as a free country. There's a big difference between using the public domain status of works of the U.S. government to fill up content and creating a work which appears to smell of reflecting the U.S. government's agenda by suppressing dissenting voices. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- Overturn WP:G10, list at XfD. WP:ATTACK talks about a page, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject. You could make a plausible case that this userbox was intended to disparage the US Government. But it seems to me that G10 was intended to protect people, and by extension, companies and organizations, not to protect the US Government. That being said, I don't think the userbox belongs in wikipedia. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not to make political statements. There are plenty of other, better, forums to express the opinion promoted by this userbox. But let's delete it through community process, not by administrative fiat. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- I can't see the box, but given what Roy says, I can't imagine I'd !vote to do anything other than overturn. Also, did anyone contact @CambridgeBayWeather: before or after this DRV was posted? Hobit (talk) 05:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- Endorse. The userbox said: "This user's privacy, safety and liberty are threatened by America's bullshit", and contained image links to Uncle Sam is watching you! (sic, a red link) and to PRISM (surveillance program). The G10 deletion rule covers "pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose". The userbox did disparage the United States, which is a state and therefore an "entity", and its surveillance program, and serves no discernible other purpose (at least in the context of writing an encyclopedia). G10 was therefore correctly applied. Contrary to RoySmith, I don't see anything in G10 to suggest that governments or states are exempt from its coverage, although I agree with him that the deletion outcome was also correct on the merits because we are not a forum for political speech. Sandstein 10:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- Coomment The appeal to freedom of speech is a red herring and is covered at Wikipedia:Free speech. I'd also point out that there is no evidence that the user in question is located in the US and it could possibly have been a general attack on Americans. There are enough people on Wikipedia with an anti something attitude and there is no need to encourage them. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- Users are traditionally granted wide latitude in their own userspace. Looking at the guidelines for G10, it's not reasonably possible to stretch the definition to cover this situation. The USA is a nation state and can't be libelled. The provision about legal threats clearly does not apply. It's not reasonably possible to threaten, harass, or intimidate a country. None of our BLP rules can reasonably be invoked. This is stretching G10 way beyond its intended scope and I don't see how we can allow it to stand.—S Marshall T/C 19:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
-
- G10 is not (only) about BLP or libel. It's about content that is more broadly out of scope of our project because it boils down to "X sucks!", which is a waste of bytes because Wikipedia is not a discussion forum for our personal views about countries, people or whatever. Replace "America" with, say, "Israel" or "Muslims", and it becomes perhaps a bit more clear why G10's wording does encompass this kind of content. Sandstein 21:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
-
- I understand that argument and I do feel its force. I'd reply with two questions. Firstly, should DRV interpret speedy deletion criteria narrowly or broadly? Secondly, should DRV compare the action against the criterion as written, or should it be more elastic and infer novel terms the community has yet to discuss?—S Marshall T/C 21:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
-
- I don't see how these questions apply to this issue. CSD, like all policies, should be applied based on its wording as interpreted in the light of Wikipedia's core principles and policies - in this case, WP:NOT a forum or a web host. Sandstein 22:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- Overturn, List at MfD, and Delete per WP:POLEMIC; offensive divisive and not related to the project
An over-stretch of CSD#G10, its primary purpose was not per the wording of G10, but to make a claim for political sympathy. If undeleted, I could check the author's other contributions to look for a bigger picture, but "WP:NOT a forum or a web host" is not a CSD criterion. It was not so offensive that routine passage through MfD was inadvisable. It is so clearly "WP:POLEMIC; offensive divisive and not related to the project" that I have zero doubt that it would be deleted at MfD. leave it deleted --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC) - Overturn Not G10. Needs discussion at MfD. DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
9 December 2016[edit]
DeAndre Brackensick[edit]
(Apologies that this is so long - I wanted to be thorough in explaining my views)
Tagging editors involved with the original AfD: (AfD Nominator - John from Idegon), Piotrus, CoffeeWithMarkets, SwisterTwister, Bearian, Onel5969, Spirit of Eagle
I'm not entirely sure that this is the proper forum for this discussion, as I don't have any issues with how the closing administrator handled things, and the article was redirected, rather than deleted. But I've been told by those involved with the AfD that this is where they'd like to be having the discussion, rather than on the article's talk page. So I'm opening it here; I hope that's okay.
The article was nominated for deletion all the way back in September of last year. I was unaware of the AfD at the time, and so I didn't participate. A clear consensus was formed in favor of redirecting. The administrator, Samwalton9, properly closed the AfD as a redirect. I have no problem with that.
Rather, my problem is that those who voted in the AfD either failed to discover or neglected to mention several high-quality, independent sources that have been published on the article's subject. During the AfD, votes in favor of deletion or redirection stated, incorrectly, that Brackensick had yet to receive any considerable news coverage, separate from his appearance on the eleventh season of American Idol (a competition in which Brackensick placed eighth). At the time of the AfD though, Brackensick had already been signed to a minor label and released a single, titled "Her Crazy". This single has been the primary focus of articles published by Yahoo! [1], The York Dispatch [2] [3], and The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. [4] In the time since Brackensick first appeared on American Idol, he has also been profiled by SFGate [5], MidWeek, [6] and Campbelltown MacArthur Advertiser. [7] These profiles appeared between one and three years after Brackensick's initial involvement with Idol.
My understanding is that a musical artist really only needs to meet the general notability guidelines, as detailed at WP:Notability, in order to have an article on Wikipedia. As such, it's my opinion that all ranking contestants (by which I mean the top 12 or so) to appear on any season of American Idol should have their own articles, purely on the basis that all ranking contestants to have appeared on the show have received significant coverage from professional, third-party publications. I understand however, and respect, that many other editors disagree with me on this matter. There are definitely some who feel that only those contestants who have gone on to have music careers should have their own articles. To my knowledge, no policy or guideline has ever been written to support either of these opinions. So for the time being, it's more or less up to personal interpretation. Although I personally feel that it would be appropriate, and keeping with the policies outlined in WP:Notability, to have an article on someone like, say, CJ Harris, (who placed sixth in the thirteenth season of the show and has never released music professionally), I won't contest the deletion discussion that was held on his article awhile back, because I realize that it would simply come down to two different interpretations of what does or doesn't constitute notability. I'm not interested in arguing with anyone over purely subjective matters.
In the case of DeAndre Brackensick however, he has released music professionally, and he's received considerable news coverage for doing so. One of the editors with whom I've already discussed this matter has suggested that even with these sources, Brackensick should still not be considered notable, supposedly because he fails to meet every one of the criteria listed at WP:BAND. This strikes me as a misinterpretation of what WP:BAND is intended for though. To quote that guideline directly, musical artists "may be notable if they meet at least one" of the listed criteria - at least one.
Criteria #9 specifically seems to be mentioned from time-to-time by editors arguing against the notability of reality show contestants - this criteria says that musical artists may be notable if they have "won first, second or third place in a major music competition". Although Brackensick only placed eighth, the fact that he fails to meet this criteria shouldn't be used as an argument against his notability. Many notable artists would fail to meet this criteria, because many notable artists have never even participated in a "major music competition". That said, Brackensick does meet criteria #1, #12, and probably #4 as well. And again, in order to meet the standards of WP:BAND, he only needs to meet "at least one" of these.
None of the above-mentioned sources were included in Brackensick's article at the time of the AfD. All of them had already been published though. It's unclear to me why they escaped the attention of the participating editors. I would hope that everyone who voted did at least a cursory search beforehand, but I realize that sometimes, for whatever reason, this doesn't happen. I also realize that sometimes certain articles just don't show up in search results. I'm not upset with anyone who participated in the AfD discussion, but I do feel that they made the wrong call. Jpcase (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- In the larger context, his single seems to have failed to chart. I don't see any retrospective analysis, either, saying that it's one of the 'best non-charting singles of year X' or whatever. The single also appears to have gotten no lasting coverage of any form other than a burst of interest back when he released it.
- Is he somewhat notable in terms of being a singer? I would agree, to a limited extent, as multiple sources do mention him. Look... I don't want to sound mean to him as an individual. Of course, my personal opinion of one's music and/or career doesn't matter when looking at things as an editor. Nonetheless, I've got to point out that this looks like a classic 'fifteen minutes of fame' scenario. Brackensick's popularity exists in specific connection to his role in the TV show. His notoriety is almost solely based on that and that alone. Interest in the single, in his touring, in his plans to diversify his sound, and the like seems like a complete outgrowth of what he did on Idol. He's not, at least to me, someone like a Kelly Clarkson or Simon Cowell with a sense of fundamental notoriety distinct from the show. It's fine to mention him on Wikipedia. Yet it's perfectly logical to do so in a way that explains things in the proper context, which I think is what's done having his name be a redirect to the specific Idol article.
- Again, it's hard to put these thoughts down coherently without sounding condescending to the man (maybe I just need a good nights sleep at the moment, perhaps), but I don't see the significant notoriety needed that would build a good article. I still support the decision made. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Just going to note that I'm not an administrator or anything. I'm merely commenting to express the disagreement that was made back when the actual deletion decision was made, given that I was an involved party. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- @CoffeeWithMarkets: Thanks for weighing in. I definitely don't get the impression that you're being condescending, although I do appreciate the civil and respectful tone of your response. All of the points that you've made are valid concerns. I'd like to go through them one-by-one and express why I feel differently:
- Just going to note that I'm not an administrator or anything. I'm merely commenting to express the disagreement that was made back when the actual deletion decision was made, given that I was an involved party. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- In the larger context, his single seems to have failed to chart. I don't see any retrospective analysis, either, saying that it's one of the 'best non-charting singles of year X' or whatever. The single also appears to have gotten no lasting coverage of any form other than a burst of interest back when he released it.
-
- - Brackensick certainly hasn't achieved a great deal as an artist at this point. But success and notability aren't necessarily synonymous. I'm sure there are plenty of musical artists on Wikipedia, who have never charted. Ultimately, coverage in reliable sources should, I feel, be the primary factor in determining an artist's notability, rather than commercial or critical success.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I've got to point out that this looks like a classic 'fifteen minutes of fame' scenario.
-
- - If Brackensick had only been profiled by reliable sources in the same year as his appearance on Idol, then this might be more or less the case. But he was profiled by SFGate and MidWeek a year after his season of the show had ended - and by the Campbelltown MacArthur Advertiser three years after. Yes, these publications are primarily interested in him because of his involvement with Idol. But no-one can exactly say that his fame is fleeting.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Brackensick's popularity exists in specific connection to his role in the TV show. His notoriety is almost solely based on that and that alone. Interest in the single, in his touring, in his plans to diversify his sound, and the like seems like a complete outgrowth of what he did on Idol. He's not, at least to me, someone like a Kelly Clarkson or Simon Cowell with a sense of fundamental notoriety distinct from the show.
-
- - This is perhaps the crux of the issue. Should we discount certain coverage from denoting individual notability on Brackensick, just because we feel that this coverage is directly tied to Brackensick's involvement with a single event? Some editors seem to think so. Personally though, I don't feel that we should hold reality show contestants to a higher standard of notability than any other kind of musical artist. If a new artist, without any affiliations to a televised reality series, showed up on the scene today, with a non-charting single, yet received significant coverage in the above-mentioned sources, then that artist would almost definitely be considered notable enough for his or her own Wikipedia page. Shouldn't the fact that Brackensick was heavily featured, over the course of several months, on one of the most watched television shows in America only make him more notable than such an artist? --Jpcase (talk) 04:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- My two cents: if he passes WP:NMUSIC because of his single, he is notable. Otherwise, I lean towards the fact that any coverage of his single is related to him being on that reality show, which still falls under WP:ONEVENT. Do note that coverage of one event can be spread over years and it does not make it less one-eventish. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Piotrus: True, multi-year news coverage could potentially still be seen as pertaining to a single event. But keep in mind that individuals only notable for a single event are allowed to have standalone articles, as directly stated in WP:ONEEVENT: If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. Here, we're starting to get into subjective territory. How is a "significant" event defined? How is a "large role" within that event defined? Different people may hold different standards. Personally, I feel that a nationally broadcast, 14-season television series, that topped viewership ratings for several years, and was called by the head of a rival network, "the most impactful show in the history of television", [8] should be considered a "significant event". And I feel that being heavily featured over the course of multiple months on that show should qualify as "playing a significant role", regardless of where Brackensick actually placed in the competition. Others may differ in these interpretations though; again, it's somewhat subjective. I feel that the most objective way of defining these terms is to simply look at sourcing. A significant event should be defined, I feel, as one that has received considerable news coverage from many reliable, third-party sources - by this criteria, American Idol unambiguously qualifies. It would follow that a significant role within an event should, I feel, be defined as one that has been the primary focus of several, individual articles pertaining to that event - likewise, Brackensick would unambiguously qualify, as he has been the primary focus of considerable news coverage both during, and several years after, his involvement with American Idol. Does this seem like a reasonable, objective standard by which to define these criteria laid out in WP:ONEEVENT? --Jpcase (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- My sense: if a musical artist tours (inter)nationally, as a headliner or "special guest", and it is documented by significant coverage in two or more reliable sources, then that is sufficient to make the musician notable. Bearian (talk) 13:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Bearian: By that standard, Brackensick would seem to qualify. In 2012, he was a part of the American Idol tour, which not only spanned across the United States, but also held a show in the Philippines. Here are a handful of sources - Billboard, The Hollywood Reporter, SanJose.com, The Philippine Daily Inquirer. Brackensick also continues to perform professionally. According to this 2015 article by the Honolulu Pulse (The Honolulu Pulse is a division of the Honolulu Star-Advertiser), Brackensick has not only held occasional performances in Hawaii, where he's currently attending community college, but has also traveled to the US East Coast for several shows, and has even toured (probably on a small scale) in New Zealand and Australia. --Jpcase (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- Haven't changed my position. Regarding the new sources: Yahoo is brief blurb, The SF article is a PR piece, the York pieces are not an RS (it appears to be a forum, not a news site), the Milwaukee piece is an article about someone else in which he gets mentioned. On the whole, not enough to meet the significant coverage requirement, and he did not headline a national tour. Onel5969 TT me 17:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Onel5969: It's certainly fair to analyze the quality of each of these sources. But the York Dispatch articles don't come from a "forum"; they're essentially editorial pieces and should absolutely qualify as RS. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article is about the founder of Brackensick's music label, a man named Kevin Sucher, but talks about Sucher primarily within the context of his work with Brackensick. In fact, the Milwaukee article barely even mentions Brackensick's involvement with Idol, despite mentioning and quoting Brackensick several times - which should, I feel, display that Brackensick has attained at least some amount of notability separate from his appearance on that show. Also - what about the MidWeek article, and the one from Campbelltown MacArthur Advertiser? Or the Honolulu Pulse article that I linked to in my response to Bearian above? --Jpcase (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Comment. When did we reach the point that AFD-spurred redirects must go to DRV even if not substantially identical to the original article? If the original article had been flat-out deleted, the added material here would be significant enough to prevent speedy deletion. Why is a less stringent outcome more rigorously enforced? What is the policy basis for this anomalous practice? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- Endorse. The consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DeAndre Brackensick was clear. The consensus was clearly for "delete or redirect". It was a Wikipedia:Pseudo-deletion by redirection, and so may be challenged here at DRV, but here at DRV there is no case to argue to overturn the AfD. The nomination here does not seem to challenge the AfD process or close, but is rearguing the AfD. DRV is not AFD2. You might try negotiating with the AfD closer for a re-open to make new points, or try userfying to improve the article with better sources that demonstrate wider notability, but you need sources to back up the statements made in the nomination here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
-
- @SmokeyJoe: You're right - I'm not looking to challenge how the AfD played out, other than to note that key information went unnoticed and deserves to be part of the discussion. I agree that the consensus was clearly in favor of redirecting and that the AfD was properly closed as such. But I do feel that the sources I've linked to above make a case for restoring the article. If this isn't the proper forum for having that discussion, then I'm entirely willing to move it somewhere else. Initially, I tried restoring the article on my own, with better sourcing and a note on the talk page. I wasn't entirely sure that doing so was the appropriate course of action, but WP:Redirects for Discussion gave me the impression that I could just Be Bold and give it a shot. I knew that if anyone opposed the decision, they would always be free to revert me - which is exactly what happened. You can still see the better sourced version that I created a couple days ago in the article's history here [9]) though. Admittedly, I didn't put a lot of work into it - all I did was improve sourcing for statements that had already been included in the article (and slightly rephrase a sentence or two). A lot more could have been done, but I felt that what I did was at least sufficient for displaying notability. Clearly, some of the AfD's initial participants disagree. I've spoken with the AfD's closing administrator, Samwalton9, on his talk page. He knows that I've opened a discussion here at Deletion Review, although he hasn't offered an opinion on whether the sources I've offered up establish notability. If Samwalton9, or you, or anyone else feels that it would be better to continue this discussion somewhere else, or to reopen the AfD, or to simply start a new AfD, then I'd be open to any of those possibilities. --Jpcase (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Comment: I've found even more sources:
- Here's another 2015 article from the Honolulu Star-Advertiser (accessed through HighBeam). Like the other article from this newspaper (that I linked to in my response to Bearian above), it's about a performance that Brackensick held with an artist named Raiatea Helm, who doesn't seem to have her own Wikipedia article, but probably should, considering that she has apparently been nominated for multiple Grammys - see Grammy Award for Best Hawaiian Music Album - and is the niece of George Helm. The article also briefly indicates that another Grammy-nominated artist, named Makana, was a part of this performance.
- Here's another article from the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. This one is about a 2013 music festival in which Brackensick was a featured performer. Although not the primary focus of the article, Brackensick does receive a brief critical review. And while the article does mention American Idol, it directly states that Brackensick's involvement with the festival likely stemmed instead from connections made through his professional music career.
- And here's an article from Metroactive that likewise, isn't about Brackensick, but mentions him within a context that's separate from his American Idol involvement. The article's focus is another small-time (but professional) artist named Molia, who (I didn't know this until just now) recorded two singles with Brackensick in 2013.
So to recap - in addition to the dozens-upon-dozens of reliable sources providing significant coverage about Brackensick within the context of his initial American Idol appearance and his involvement with the international American Idol tour, we have sources discussing how Brackensick signed (at least temporarily) to a professional music label and released a single through that label, continues to perform professionally - not only in Hawaii, where he's currently attending community college, but also throughout the continental US, New Zealand, and Australia - has been featured in at least one significant music festival, has performed alongside two Grammy-nominated artists in at least one of his concerts, and has collaborated with another somewhat notable artist on multiple singles. All of these articles mention Brackensick's involvement with American Idol, which is to be expected, as that's undeniably a significant part of his bio. And some of the articles are clearly interested in Brackensick, primarily due to his reality show fame. But several other articles are clearly discussing Brackensick within a context that is primarily separate from Idol. As stated in my response to SmokeyJoe above, I'm happy to carry on this conversation somewhere else, if it's determined that Deletion Review isn't the proper place for it. But I would be curious to hear what the editors who had been involved with the AfD think about these newly discovered sources. --Jpcase (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- Add this 2015 news feature from New Zealand's primary state broadcasting network, TVNZ1, onto the heap. Admittedly, it's not a perfect source - the coverage is split pretty evenly between Brackensick's Idol fame and a sold-out concert of his in Auckland, New Zealand - the latter of which, could perhaps be interpreted as PR-ish. Still we shouldn't discount the source entirely. It shows that Brackensick has sold out a concert in the largest city of a foreign country three years after his run on Idol and received coverage from one of that country's major news networks for doing so. Regardless of whether this is deemed somewhat PR-related (not that it's an official press release or anything - an independent news network was still responsible for the content), that shows some pretty long-lasting and far reaching-notability - right? --Jpcase (talk) 14:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- Close, with reference to WP:BOLD and talk page discussion The OP is requesting permission to edit the encyclopedia. One of our WP:5P fundamental principles is that editors have the right to edit the encyclopedia.
A non-deletion notability dispute is a content dispute. WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT specifies, "Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum." Unscintillating (talk) 02:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
-
- I thing we've discussed this before? The AfD amounts to pseudo-deletion, as described at Wikipedia:Pseudo-deletion by redirection. With no content merged, and the AfD strongly implying that no content is to be merged, an isolated editor is in a very poor position to revert the redirect, or to start merging content from behind the redirect. Two or more editors may well demonstrate a consensus to recover material for merging through discussion on the redirect target's talk page, but should they wish to allege procedural problems with the AfD discussion or close, neither the redirect nor target talk pages are appropriate. Short of a bold revert of the redirect with sufficient new material to overcome the deletion reasons (eg sourced appreciable achievement beyond Idol), the only recourse the editor has is DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Recent discussions[edit]
6 December 2016[edit]
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Multiple instances of incorrect information used in deletion discussion + new information: 1)editor states: "MTVu is not the same as MTV, as it is only available on 750 or so college campuses" & "only 1-week" VO5 had a song with 8 week heavy rotation on MTVu, available on most digital cable subscription (like Charter Cable) nationally with millions of viewers not just on college campuses. The song has 2 videos with over 600,000 worldwide total views on the VO5 youtube channel [1] 2)"unsigned cover band" - with "only local coverage". Sample article about original music from out of state: [2] also "Unique Album of the Year" Madison Area Awards and multiple out-of-state reviews listed in article (Obscure Sound, Milk Crater, votd.tv, World Music Cental listed. [3] 3) "Subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works" Front-page & multi-page print article in Wisconsin State Journal, the major state-wide newspaper with daily printed circulation of 100,000 : "V05 still shaking it at age 10, with first original album" [4] Likewise, long articles in The Isthmus (print circulation 50,000 weekly)) and Maximum Ink (print circulation 25,000) mentioned and are not student newspapers or blogs and have state-wide appeal. 4) "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city" notable style: nu-disco. Featured on Wisconsin Public Television's acclaimed "30-minute Music Hour" Aired: 11/17/2015 on 12 stations covering the entire state of Wisconsin. Ten-piece disco music revivalists from Madison, WI playing original songs from their new album titled "Dance Originality" with funk, jazz and Latin influences. [5] References
Fantartic (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
5 December 2016[edit]
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This was closed as no consensus, but I believe most of the Keep !votes should have been disregarded. Specifically, it was asserted that meeting a criterion in WP:NJOURNALS conferred notability even in the absence of any reliable independent sources. The journal is indexed and has an impact factor (0.3, which means that the vast majority of papers are never referenced - it would be rejected as a source for most claims on Wikipedia), but the fact of being indexed is sourced directly to the index, in the form "foo is in bar index, source, foo entry in bar"; and the journal descriptors in these indexes are all supplied by the publisher, who also, naturally, applies for them to be indexed. So we have no reliable independent sources that allow us to validate that the article is neutral. Is it a good journal or does it publish firnge rubbish? We don't know. Well, we know it's not good with that impact factor, but the point is we cannot verify that the self-description supplied to the likes of SCOPUS by the publisher, is neutral. The major problem here is that editors who are fans of journals, are using inclusion in an index as a sufficient condition for notability rather than a necessary but insufficient criterion, which is how subject notability guides should be interpreted. That's fine if you want to compile a directory of journals, but WP:NOTDIR, and we must be able to WP:V the WP:NPOV of an article from reliable independent sources. Here, there is no independence. The delete !votes correctly referenced independence, whereas the keeps went with "it ticks box X so it is notable regardless of the absence of independent sources. Guy (Help!) 00:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
|
| 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. |
|
The category was deleted eight months ago (along with other "Novelists from..." categories based on first-order divisions of China). However, I would like to request that the matter be reopened. Category:Writers from Shanghai is a sufficiently large category that it really should be diffused by genre, I think, and many other Chinese provinces/special municipalities will also face that situation eventually. I think novelists are a sufficiently distinctive category that it would be a good way to diffuse to start with. (Further geographical diffusions are going to be difficult and not particularly useful, so I think genre diffusion has to be the way to go, unless we want to go for era diffusions, which I also think will be unhelpful given that Shanghai is a modern city and therefore the vast majority of writers from Shanghai will be of PRC origin.) I also think that analogous categories for other first-order divisions (provinces and special municipalities) should be restored, but let's start with discussing about Shanghai, as that category is, as I just mentioned, large and cannot be diffused by geography. Nlu (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
|
| 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. |
|
I am not sure where to go but this seems as good a place as any. Please direct me to the appropriate forum if I am incorrect. I am here because I keep being told (see below) that this page has a consensus to redirect yet I cannot locate any discussion which from what I read, would have been part of a deletion discussion.
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
4 December 2016[edit]
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
There are two reasons. First, there is significant new information that shows the subject is notable. After the original article was deleted, NBC News ran a primetime special on the subject. Trailer: https://www.instagram.com/p/BMnDkslA3wi/ Full Episode: http://www.nbcnews.com/dateline/video/full-episode-the-man-who-knew-too-much-812427331656 Second, the closer of the AfD discussion interpreted it incorrectly. There was no consensus reached that the general notability guideline was not satisfied. Two users said "Delete" because there were no reliable independent sources. Then a user said "Keep" and posted nine sources. These were very strong sources, such as the BBC. After the sources were posted, nobody responded, so the admin "Sandstein" relisted the discussion. I said "Keep," and so did other unregistered users. The only new support for "Delete" came from a user who said he "tried his best" but couldn't find the sources. He must not have read the beginning of the discussion, where the URLs were all posted. Nobody ever criticized the sources that were posted, so no consensus for "Delete" could exist. If anything, the consensus was to "Keep." I explained this problem to the admin who deleted the article, and he told me to create a deletion review: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MBisanz/Archive_20#Afd_Clinton_Ehrlich I hope this article can now be restored, like the rules require. Thank you. ReinhardStove (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
1 December 2016[edit]
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Per WP:ROUTINE, WP:PERSISTENCE, and WP:109PAPERS. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Archive[edit]
| 2016 | |||
| January | February | March | April |
| May | June | July | August |
| September | October | November | December |
| 2015 | |||
| January | February | March | April |
| May | June | July | August |
| September | October | November | December |
| 2014 | |||
| January | February | March | April |
| May | June | July | August |
| September | October | November | December |
| 2013 | |||
| January | February | March | April |
| May | June | July | August |
| September | October | November | December |
| 2012 | |||
| January | February | March | April |
| May | June | July | August |
| September | October | November | December |
| 2011 | |||
| January | February | March | April |
| May | June | July | August |
| September | October | November | December |
| 2010 | |||
| January | February | March | April |
| May | June | July | August |
| September | October | November | December |
| 2009 | |||
| January | February | March | April |
| May | June | July | August |
| September | October | November | December |
| 2008 | |||
| January | February | March | April |
| May | June | July | August |
| September | October | November | December |
| 2007 | |||
| January | February | March | April |
| May | June | July | August |
| September | October | November | December |
| 2006 | |||
| January | February | March | April |
| May | June | July | August |
| September | October | November | December |
