Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 August 8

Wikipedia:2015 main page redesign proposal – Overturn and undelete. There is solid consensus here that, while the original G6 deletion may have been reasonable, once it became obvious that this wasn't uncontroversial, G6 no longer applied. Anybody is still free to bring this to MFD. – -- RoySmith (talk) 23:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

No reason nor need to delete the page. Taku (talk) 23:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete. Seems like an abuse of WP:G6 as well. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Undelete~~ Endorse. per deleter's rationale below. 12:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC) ~~Agree – we should keep it for posterity and perhaps tag it as {{rejected}}. Nobody likes to reinvent a broken wheel.~~ – Paine 01:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Any reason for not talking to the deleting admin to resolve, rather than drag it here for 7 days? --86.2.216.5 (talk) 09:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC) [reply]
~~I've also informed the deleting admin for you, as the instructions (and common courtesy) suggest you do. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 09:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]
- (edit conflict) See the discussion at Talk:Main Page#Main page redesign – hth. – Paine 10:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, missed that, it doesn't really appear to be a complete discussion per se, but not totally unreasonable. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 12:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Deleter's comment There was also no reason to keep the page, as there was no content to speak of that could be considered worth keeping; with just 5 edits, it only had the header and one link copied from the 2014 page to a proposed design that also has no content (the bare "just links" proposal). Meanwhile, there was still a discussion pending on the 2014 page, and all the other venues for discussion are splattered with links to empty discussion pages. Were it sent it to WP:MFD, it would surely have been deleted. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 10:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment without seeing the content, on the one hand G6 is quite clearly uncontroversial deletions, and reasonable objection to deletion would seem to make it "controversial", on the other side of that if the content is as Edokter describes then it's perhaps more difficult to understand objections as reasonable, is it serving a real purpose other than a bureaucratic one? --86.2.216.5 (talk) 12:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the possibility that the nom (or someone else involved) has proper designs on the page title and intends to fill it with valid content. At this point, though, I feel that any further re-creation approval rests with the deleter, and that this deletion review should be endorsed and speedily closed. Apologies to [[User:Edokter]] for my initial klutzy "Undelete". – Paine 13:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete G6 is meant for Uncontroversial maintenance this thread has proved it is not uncontroversial. 2015 isn't even passed. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 13:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Temporarily undeleted for the purposes of this discussion Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Spartaz; in addition I have boldly restored the version that existed before the deleting admin removed content in preparation for deletion. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and i have reverted you and locked the template. Please dont do that again. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My bad! It's been a long time since I last participated in DRV. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification The only reason why I'm asking for undeletion is because this deletion and subsequent events essentially un-indexed a notable main page redesign proposal from Wikipedia:Main page redesign proposals. If there is some other way that a casual reader who is interested in seeing main page redesign proposals would be able to see the 2015 proposals alongside all the others, then I withdraw my objection. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 16:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You could list them (and move the pages) as stand-alone entities instead of listing them under the "2015" moniker. They technically predated 2015 anyway. I just want to simplify navigation and those empty 'per-year' pages aren't helping. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 20:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the problem is emptyness, the solution is to populate with the page with more content, not the deletion. If you want, I can put my own proposal so that the page is less empty. Also, what is wrong with the redesign effort page? The page makes sense as there has been continuing efforts (with no success) for redesign. -- Taku (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Populate with what? That is thinking the wrong way. All I want is to have some clear overview instead of having to wade through every year's page that seems to be created automatically. It is navigation nightmare. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 11:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy overturn speedy deletion. {{db-g6}} applies only to "Uncontroversial maintenance". This speedy deletion became controversial the moment it was contested. No speedy deletion criterion applies.
The page's emptiness should not be an issue because as Taku wrote above, "If the problem is emptyness, the solution is to populate with the page with more content, not the deletion. If you want, I can put my own proposal so that the page is less empty."
Edokter (talk · contribs), would you undo your speedy deletion and list this at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion if you still believe this should be deleted?
Cunard (talk) 04:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Send to MFD. G6 requires a deletion to be uncontroversial, and if it has been disputed, it is clearly not uncontroversial. Stifle (talk) 08:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - obviously controversial. G6s are often best guesses (and probably the vaguest criterion), so I'd caution against too much heck for the deleting admin. Wily D 10:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per WilyD. North of Eden (talk) 02:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, with no prejudice against the deleting admin, who made a reasonable (if incorrect) assumption that it'd be uncontroversial. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Undelete. Any G6 should be undeleted on request without needing to make a case. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jim Vejvoda – Referred to AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Vejvoda. Technically we have no consensus because opinions are divided about whether the speedy deletion should be endorsed because (in the view of some) the article has no chance at AfD, or whether it should be overturned because the A7 speedy deletion criteria were (it is argued) not met. As usual in such cases, we'll let a deletion discussion determine this. – Sandstein 07:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page was deleted by administrator Peridon with the reasoning of "Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject" – despite the fact that two people, me and another editor, contested this speedy deletion on the talk page with arguments that he was a notable film critic for a notable entertainment website, IGN, and that that in itself made him notable for an article. Also, please note the article had two citations to reliable sources, categories, etc. It was a stub, but last time I checked just because something is a stub doesn't mean it's valid for deletion. The fact that he's a noted film critic for a notable website, IGN, and is the Executive Editor of its Movie Division, does "credibly indicate the importance or significance of [him]". Therefore, I'm contesting this speedy deletion as invalid. If anything, it should have gone through the Articles for deletion process first, as it was reliably sourced with two people making arguments about its notability on the talk page, which the administrator apparently didn't consider. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn per reasons above SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the references were in-house links to the website, and the third was a profile. I could see no credible claim to significance - there are thousands of web-based critics in the world with nothing special about them. The website being notable does not mean every person associatedwith it is also notable. I've no objection to a new article that does show significance (and is referenced with reliable independent sources WP:RS, or to this one going to AfD. Peridon (talk) 00:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, I still believe this doesn't qualify as speedy deletion. He isn't just some average critic, he is the Executive Editor of IGN's Movie Division, which gives him enough notability not to be speedily deleted. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 00:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do sources have anything to do with A7? A2soup (talk) 09:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of good sources can help to support notability, and notability trumps significance. The lack of good sources doesn't mean a fail - it means you have to go on what's said in the article. Peridon (talk) 11:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse speedy deletion, the objections raised by the two users who contested the speedy deletion are without merit. Kraxler (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How are they "without merit"? This person is the Executive Editor of IGN's Movie Division, which makes him notable, he's not just some ordinary film critic. Please explain your arguments. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 14:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of the position of Executive Editor of a division of a company being automatically notable. Can you point to anywhere on WP where it says this? Peridon (talk) 11:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

temporarily undeleted to allow non admins to review. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Given there was only 7 minutes between talk-age query and listing at DRV, we can't really be surprised that Peridon wasn't able to explain to the nominator that their article failed to assert notability so fell to a routine A7 but that this doesn't stop then from recreating the article using reliable sources that meet the GNG as sourcing counts as asserting notability. Unfortunately, because the nominator was so impatient this means they have to wait 7 days for this to close as endorse before trying to come up with a compliant article. Failing that perhaps they might want to withdraw this and try Articles for creation instead? Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do sourcing and notability have to do with A7? A2soup (talk) 09:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a comment at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 August 8#Jim Vejvoda asking for editors' opinions on whether
Jim Vejvoda is a film critic for the entertainment website IGN, and is also the Executive Editor of its Movies channel. ...
is enough to pass the {{db-a7}} bar.
I am unsure.
I think these probably would all pass {{db-a7}}:
1. X is a film critic for the Chicago Tribune.
2. X is a film critic for the Detroit Free Press.
3. X is a film critic for the The New York Times.
4. X is the executive editor for the Chicago Tribune's film division.
5. X is the executive editor for the Detroit Free Press's film division.
6. X is the executive editor for the The New York Times's film division.
These are all major broadsheet newspapers. But would the same apply for the major entertainment website IGN?
Cunard (talk) 04:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Something like "X is a film critic for entertainment magazine Entertainment Weekly" is probably a fairer comparison. —Cryptic 04:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe "X is a film critic for entertainment magazine Entertainment Weekly" would be enough to pass the {{db-a7}} bar. Thanks for the better example.
    I was unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources about the subject, so unless other editors can find sources, this likely would get deleted at AfD. But I agree with the comments below that this passes the {{db-a7}} bar.
    Overturn.
    Cunard (talk) 05:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Being a top film critic and executive anything at IGN is a claim of significance. Maybe the page should be deleted - but definitely not speedy deleted. We need more discussion and more information before we can delete this. The fact that two editors contested this and it was cited to reliable sources makes it even worse. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and send it to afd; it's at least borderline, and that should be the default for a speedy deletion reasonably contested in good faith anyway. It'll probably be deleted in short order there unless you present some independent sources, though. —Cryptic 04:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Being a film critic at a site notable for its film criticism is a sufficient assertion of significance to survive A7. There is no exception for poorly sourced stubs. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 05:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Article appears to contain a credible claim of significance. VQuakr (talk) 06:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - merely being a critic for an important magazine is not an assertion of significance, any more than my saying I'm a scientist at Oxbridge is an assertion of significance. If Cunard can't find sources, I'm guessing they don't exist, so a "perhaps a generous person could see this as a skin of the teeth assertion of significance" doesn't seem very valuable. Find a real source, and I (or any other sucker in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles will send you back the (minimal) content). Wily D 10:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing that you guys keep missing! He is not "merely a critic" for IGN, he is also the Executive Editor of IGN's Movie Division, which makes him more than a mere critic, and gives a valuable claim of significance. Certainly valuable enough not to be speedily deleted. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 10:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – For anyone who says that the sources are not good enough because they're sourced to IGN itself, primary sources are allowed (albeit secondary sources are preferred), however I will do my best to find other sources about Vejvoda if the article is kept. I just don't think this passes as a speedy deletion, as others have already said. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, even if that were an assertion of significance, which I don't buy, what's the point in undeletion here for certain deletion in a week at AfD? Beyond that, it ain't that the sources are disallowed, but independent sources would go towards showing notability, and generally make A7 inapplicable. Internal sources aren't necessarily untrustworthy, they just don't add anything. Ultimately, the point of speedy deletion criterion A7 is to delete articles that give no indication why the subject might meet the usual inclusion criterion, and whose chance of surviving articles for deletion is a snowball's chance of surviving in Hell for a Hubble time wearing a gasoline suit. Wily D 11:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL. This may very well pass at an AFD. There are also several independent sources that talk about Vejvoda, such as this one. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 11:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you're quoting CRYSTAL at me, since it's not relevant here. This article has no chance of passing an AfD. It definitely will not. If an entirely different article could pass an AfD, the wise thing to do would be to write an article that could conceivably pass an AfD, then put that in the mainspace. If Cunard says they looked and couldn't find sufficient sources, I have to believe they probably don't exist (for instance, that Tribune article does basically nothing; I don't think any number of sources of that quality would get the article past AfD), but of course, maybe they're written in Swahili or Innu or something, I don't know. But restoring it just to delete it at AfD isn't sensible. And, and, and, it has at best a highly dubious assertion of significance. This article will be deleted at AfD, a statement I can make with about the same confidence I can say Bill "Spaceman" Lee will not be elected President of the United States in the 2016 election of the Rhinoceros Party ticket. Sure, perhaps there's some kind of apocolypic scenario where it comes to pass, but it's not worth seriously considering. Wily D 15:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse I'm endorsing the speedy deletion for the following reasons

The article as it stood did not meet the GNG.
The article as it stood, did not meet BLP guidelines as the references presented were 2 links to IGN (his employer), and a newswriter version of Linked-In (which falls under the WP:SPS failure conditions).
The reference presented (1) to argue for inclusion is a single line passing mention.
The argument that "Executive Editor of Movies Division" does not hold weight. How many executive editors are for the movie divison? How many divisons? Furthermore does being an executive editor of the movie division on a site that focuses primarily on Video Games confer a level of notability?
Per WP:BURO, it does not make sense to undelete the article only to turn right back around and delete it.

For these reasons, if the advocates for this article want to try re-creating the article under the aegis of Articles for Creation and work on fixing the problems, then go ahead, but to try and override the CSD is not going to end well. Hasteur (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. Whilst the letter of CSD:A7 was not met, the article has no chance of surviving an AFD in the state it was when deleted. No objection to restoring as a draft. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
List at AfD to permit additional discussion. Editors above have made good arguments that the page fails notability criteria, but that's not a reason to justify a CSD. This forum is not an alternative AfD, and should be used only to determine whether the speedy delete was appropriate. In this case, even if it should remain deleted, there needs to be an AfD discussion given concerns raised above. North of Eden (talk) 02:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete Wrong forum for arguments about notability, AfD is appropriate. Also fails A7 as there is an indication of notability, whether or not this is a truly indicates notability should not be discussed here, as A7 makes no presumption of whether an article's subject is notable. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 03:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, with a sense of exasperation. It's not a valid CSD A7, there are claims of importance in the article, and poor sourcing or a perception that a subject is not notable are not a part of CSD A7 and are irrelevant to the debate. The exasperation is because the article will almost certainly be deleted at AFD anyway, and I do regard this process as pointless wonkery and a waste of everyone's time. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
IAR endorse- if I were a rules lawyer I would say "overturn" because, strictly, this wasn't a valid A7. But it's clear that if the article is restored it's going to inevitably be deleted at AfD, so that wold be a futile waste of time. Reyk _YO! 11:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Moultrie, GA µSA – Procedural close – recreated as the result of a page rename. (non-admin closure) – – Paine 10:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Moultrie, GA µSA was kept in an RFD in 2010, but on 1 August 2013, Wizardman deleted it with the comment "what?" Last I checked, that's not a speedy critera. I came across this because a similar µSA was nominated: (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 8#Shelton, WA μSA). I was going to talk to Wizardman about it, but BU Rob13 had already posted on his talk page on July 25th with no response. Since it's been two weeks, I figured that is enough time to respond so I'm taking it here. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Rob's talk page message

I stumbled upon the RfD discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 September 27#Abbeville, LA μSA while creating an article, and noticed that you deleted Moultrie, GA µSA without a deletion rationale after the discussion closed as "Keep". Could you explain why this page was deleted? If the rationale was "implausible redirect", I'd like to request that you restore the page, given that there was consensus at the linked RfD discussion to keep the page despite those concerns. Thanks for taking a look, and sorry for bringing up an admin action from 2013. It just struck me as odd. ~ Rob^Talk 02:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I !voted above at another deletion review and happened to notice this one. I just moved a page with an incorrect Unicode symbol, Greek letter mu = 0x3bc (Moultrie, GA μSA) to the page with the correct symbol, micron sign = 0xb5 (this redirect title, Moultrie, GA µSA). They look the same, but the "µ" symbol is different in each one. This is just the tip of the iceberg, and I hope I've saved some hard-working admin some time. See also User:Paine Ellsworth/mu to micron, which lists all the correct pages to delete on the left. My project is to check all the links to ensure they are correct, and then the Greek-letter redirects may be speedied or listed at RfD. – Paine 09:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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