< October 14	Deletion review archives: 2008 October	October 16 >

15 October 2008

Category:Fictional parents who killed their children – Deletion is endorsed. The manual says to weigh the strength of arguments, not count heads. There is guidance on this aspect of categorisation, and that guidance, conveniently summarised below by JzG, determined the outcome.For the record, CfD discussions are relisted, not as often as AfD ones, but they are all the same. – Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Fictional parents who killed their children (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) (restore \| cache)`)` (CFD) The CfD was closed as delete, but I feel no such consensus was reached. Apart from the nominator, there were 2 people !voting to delete, 2 !voting to keep, the category creator commenting, and one other person commenting. If the closer wished to delete even though consensus was lacking, an explanation would have been helpful, but this was not done in the discussion or in response to my request for clarification on Kbdank71's user talk page. Andjam (talk) 11:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Overturn as no concensus I am guessing you are talking about this conversation (the nom text didn't parse the address). I am not personally in favor of categories that have only TWO articles listed in them, but it was only two weeks old and was split off of Category:Parents who killed their children, leaving the original category as non-fictional. Not enough time has been given for it to develop and the idea of breaking Fictional off as a separate category seems to make both categories more accurate (and useful to boot). What matters most is that a review of the actual deletion discussion makes it very clear that there was no concensus to delete (even !votes on both sides of the issue as well). The closing admin didn't give a reason for the deletion, so it is difficult to determine what their reasons were. To be honest, the discussion wasn't exactly full of informative policy remarks from either side. PHARMBOY (TALK) 12:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment: Doesn't seem to be any consensus, but the category seems to violate WP:NOR. I'm neutral. Stifle (talk) 13:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Endorse as closer. I gave less weight to the "defining characteristic" argument, as there was no reasoning or backup for that statement. As such, the "per 'defining characteristic' argument" also received less weight. In addition, there was questions on whether or not one of the two articles should have even been in the category, which would have left one article. While nobody came right out and said WP:OC#SMALL, there was discussion about the size of the category, and in the month from creation to deletion, there were as mentioned only two articles added. --Kbdank71 13:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Endorse per Kbdank71. Overly small and narrow category. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Ugh. Why is the category in question showing up at the bottom of the DRV page? Can someone fix that? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] fixed. --Kbdank71 14:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - no procedural errors in the close and the deletion was well within the closing admin's discretion. Otto4711 (talk) 17:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Question for articles, there is a way of proceeding even after a deletion review has been unsuccessful, which is to rewrite in user space a much improved article that answers all the objections and ask people to look again--and we frequently accept articles where that has been done. But I don't see any equivalent for a category, nor--unfortunately-- can I easily imagine one. DGG (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] My Answer Technically, it would be easier. Since it is a catagory, you would just make a simple list on your user page or subpage. There really isn't any text to a category other than wikilinks, after all. My main concern here is still that I don't see a concensus to delete in the deletion discussion. To me, that trumps the content. If we sit here and decide the fate purely on content here, wouldn't that be the same as a second deletion article? (ie: second bite at the cherry) PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Overturn Despite a repeated pattern of controversial CfD closes, Kbdank71 has offered no policy justification for why consensus should be interpreted per his insistence. XfD closes where there is a clear policy argument for retention and a strong consensus supporting that case should never be closed with the one word "delete" and no supporting justification. As pointed out above, procedures for recreation of articles seem to utterly fail in the topsy turvy CfD world, in which every effort at recreation is met with knee-jerk delete votes, regardless of any changes made to the category, and no mechanism exists to address these concerns on recreation even where they might be legitimate. The current size of the category is no obstacle for future expansion and no justification has been offered to show that WP:OC#SMALL issues could never be addressed. One whole month is not exactly the last opportunity to add entries to a category. Alansohn (talk) 01:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] The reason his closes seem "controversial" may have something to do with the number of them that you've brought to DRV recently. Just a thought. Otto4711 (talk) 03:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. No misinterpretation by closer has occurred, as demonstrated by his explanation of the rationale used. Per current practice, closer is not required to close with more than a one-word decision, though it may be helpful. It's certainly not a good reason to overturn the decision. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - per otherendorsers above. (No need to re-type the presumably obvious.) And DRV isn't CfD deux. - jc37 12:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Note: since "CfD 2" has apparently become a common theme in some recent DRVs, I ask the closer to take this essay into consideration if/when weighing such discussion. - jc37 17:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] I did not say a single CfD-style argument in this DRV request. I feel that the first comment in this discussion that turned it into CfD deux was Kbdank71's endorse as closer comment. Andjam (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Overturn - Unpopulated categories that have been unpopulated for at least four days is a speedy delete basis. The fact that no one sought speedy delete for this category and that there is a very strong likelihood of populating this newly created category makes underpopulation a very weak CFD argument for this category. "A defining characteristic, and to mirror the real world cat of Category:Parents who killed their children" as a way of not mixing fiction and nonfiction is a strong keep argument. The delete arguments amounted to two approaches. First 1. All fictional categories have problems because "we are referring to something from the age of myth here." 2. Fictional parents who killed their children" is a fictional category. 3. Since fictional parents who killed their children is a fictional category, it should be deleted. and Second 1. You cannot apply Wikipedia:Categorization to fictional categories because the cannot be couched in real world terms. 2. Thus, keep arguments citing to Wikipedia:Categorization should be given less weight. The first approach justifies deleting all fictional categories and the second approach removes a need for the closer to give any weight to the keep arguments. Both of thse approaches are entirely wrong. If you look at the log for that day, you'll see numerous fictional categories up for deletion essentially raising the same "all fictional categories have problems" and "you can't apply Wikipedia:Categorization to them" because they are not real. What this comes down to is strength of arguments. The delete reasoning failed to apply a deletion standard that would justify deleting this particular fictional category while keeping other fictional categories. The keep arguments were strong in logic and policy. The close should be overturned. -- Suntag ☼ 14:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] "A defining characteristic" with no reason why is not a strong argument in logic or policy. --Kbdank71 15:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] I'd be more than happy to provide sources, but reliable and verifiable sources have not been accepted at CfD. Tell me how many sources you need to convince you and I'll do my best to get them for you. Alansohn (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] DRV is not to continue the CFD. There was no reason at the CFD why it's defining, so it was given less weight in the close. --Kbdank71 15:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] This is not a court of appeals. We're allowed to take new facts into account if they show up. --UsaSatsui (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] The nominator argued that killing "someone" is not a defining characteristic and another editor argued that a "choice or preference" to kill someone is not a defining characteristic. Neither of these had anything to do with the actual category for an action of killing a child. The delete reasoning gave no reason at CFD as to why the category was not defining, so it was error to not give less weight to the deletion arguments in the close. As for the keep arguments related to defining characteristics, they argued strong feelings about infanticide and established defining characteristic in the real world through an existing Wikipedia category. In addition to not providing reasons as to why the category was not a defining characteristic, the delete arguments never rebutted these keep assertions about defining characteristics. I don't think the keep reasons related to defining characteristics should have been given less weight in the close. -- Suntag ☼ 22:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Overturn as No Consensus. I don't dabble in CFD, but it looks like here there was more discussion to be had about this category and whether or not it was appropriate...I certainly didn't see any sort of consensus on anything. I say overturn, have that discussion, and re-nominate if it becomes necessary. --UsaSatsui (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] overturn per Alan and Suntag. I simply cannot see this as being plausibly backed up by either policy or the consensus discussion. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Overturn A reasonable category, and no consensus to delete it. There needs to be a way of calling those few CfDs worth a more general discussion to sufficient attention. This was not a sufficient discussion to warrant deletion . DGG (talk) 01:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Would creating a deletion sorting that focused on relisted discussions be a possibility? (That'd require CfDs to be transcluded and relisted, however) (I'm referring to relisting as in an admin deciding to extend the time of discussion, not as in something coming back after DRV) Andjam (talk) 00:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Endorse per the closer's rationale, reiterated above, which I agree with. This falls easily within the reasonable boundaries of discretion for the closing admin. Eusebeus (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. Obvious lack of consensus to delete, should have been closed as keep. 71.235.38.171 (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)— 71.235.38.171 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply] No other edits by this particular IP address have been made (I haven't checked if any related IP addresses have made contributions, though). I hope no more incidents like this occur. Andjam (talk) 00:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Why is this an "incident". While this would likely be discounted, it does appear to represent a sincerely held view on this situation. Alansohn (talk) 00:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Because it's highly unlikely that the first edit made by a unique editor at a particular IP address would be a relatively obscure discussion at DRV. How long were you a user before you even figured out DRV existed? It could just be a user who is usually logged in but failed to do so this time, or it could be a case of sockpuppetry. We don't immediately assume it's sockpuppetry because of WP:AGF, but it certainly is at least "suspect"or "weird", you might say. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Unless there's evidence of puppetry (sock or meat), an IP user's opinion shouldn't be treated any differently than anyone else's. It shouldn't matter how many other edits they have. --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Overturn as no consensus or relist. Bad close. The discussion does not reflect a consensus to delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Policy reasons for deletion outweigh WP:ILIKEIT reasons to keep; a tiny category based on a random intersection of ideas. Guy (Help!) 11:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Category:Fictional parents who killed their children – Deletion is endorsed. The manual says to weigh the strength of arguments, not count heads. There is guidance on this aspect of categorisation, and that guidance, conveniently summarised below by JzG, determined the outcome.For the record, CfD discussions are relisted, not as often as AfD ones, but they are all the same. – Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The CfD was closed as delete, but I feel no such consensus was reached. Apart from the nominator, there were 2 people !voting to delete, 2 !voting to keep, the category creator commenting, and one other person commenting. If the closer wished to delete even though consensus was lacking, an explanation would have been helpful, but this was not done in the discussion or in response to my request for clarification on Kbdank71's user talk page. Andjam (talk) 11:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn as no concensus I am guessing you are talking about this conversation (the nom text didn't parse the address). I am not personally in favor of categories that have only TWO articles listed in them, but it was only two weeks old and was split off of Category:Parents who killed their children, leaving the original category as non-fictional. Not enough time has been given for it to develop and the idea of breaking Fictional off as a separate category seems to make both categories more accurate (and useful to boot). What matters most is that a review of the actual deletion discussion makes it very clear that there was no concensus to delete (even !votes on both sides of the issue as well). The closing admin didn't give a reason for the deletion, so it is difficult to determine what their reasons were. To be honest, the discussion wasn't exactly full of informative policy remarks from either side. PHARMBOY (TALK) 12:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Doesn't seem to be any consensus, but the category seems to violate WP:NOR. I'm neutral. Stifle (talk) 13:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as closer. I gave less weight to the "defining characteristic" argument, as there was no reasoning or backup for that statement. As such, the "per 'defining characteristic' argument" also received less weight. In addition, there was questions on whether or not one of the two articles should have even been in the category, which would have left one article. While nobody came right out and said WP:OC#SMALL, there was discussion about the size of the category, and in the month from creation to deletion, there were as mentioned only two articles added. --Kbdank71 13:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Kbdank71. Overly small and narrow category. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Why is the category in question showing up at the bottom of the DRV page? Can someone fix that? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fixed. --Kbdank71 14:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - no procedural errors in the close and the deletion was well within the closing admin's discretion. Otto4711 (talk) 17:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question for articles, there is a way of proceeding even after a deletion review has been unsuccessful, which is to rewrite in user space a much improved article that answers all the objections and ask people to look again--and we frequently accept articles where that has been done. But I don't see any equivalent for a category, nor--unfortunately-- can I easily imagine one. DGG (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My Answer Technically, it would be easier. Since it is a catagory, you would just make a simple list on your user page or subpage. There really isn't any text to a category other than wikilinks, after all. My main concern here is still that I don't see a concensus to delete in the deletion discussion. To me, that trumps the content. If we sit here and decide the fate purely on content here, wouldn't that be the same as a second deletion article? (ie: second bite at the cherry) PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Despite a repeated pattern of controversial CfD closes, Kbdank71 has offered no policy justification for why consensus should be interpreted per his insistence. XfD closes where there is a clear policy argument for retention and a strong consensus supporting that case should never be closed with the one word "delete" and no supporting justification. As pointed out above, procedures for recreation of articles seem to utterly fail in the topsy turvy CfD world, in which every effort at recreation is met with knee-jerk delete votes, regardless of any changes made to the category, and no mechanism exists to address these concerns on recreation even where they might be legitimate. The current size of the category is no obstacle for future expansion and no justification has been offered to show that WP:OC#SMALL issues could never be addressed. One whole month is not exactly the last opportunity to add entries to a category. Alansohn (talk) 01:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason his closes seem "controversial" may have something to do with the number of them that you've brought to DRV recently. Just a thought. Otto4711 (talk) 03:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. No misinterpretation by closer has occurred, as demonstrated by his explanation of the rationale used. Per current practice, closer is not required to close with more than a one-word decision, though it may be helpful. It's certainly not a good reason to overturn the decision. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - per otherendorsers above. (No need to re-type the presumably obvious.) And DRV isn't CfD deux. - jc37 12:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: since "CfD 2" has apparently become a common theme in some recent DRVs, I ask the closer to take this essay into consideration if/when weighing such discussion. - jc37 17:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say a single CfD-style argument in this DRV request. I feel that the first comment in this discussion that turned it into CfD deux was Kbdank71's endorse as closer comment. Andjam (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - Unpopulated categories that have been unpopulated for at least four days is a speedy delete basis. The fact that no one sought speedy delete for this category and that there is a very strong likelihood of populating this newly created category makes underpopulation a very weak CFD argument for this category. "A defining characteristic, and to mirror the real world cat of Category:Parents who killed their children" as a way of not mixing fiction and nonfiction is a strong keep argument. The delete arguments amounted to two approaches. First 1. All fictional categories have problems because "we are referring to something from the age of myth here." 2. Fictional parents who killed their children" is a fictional category. 3. Since fictional parents who killed their children is a fictional category, it should be deleted. and Second 1. You cannot apply Wikipedia:Categorization to fictional categories because the cannot be couched in real world terms. 2. Thus, keep arguments citing to Wikipedia:Categorization should be given less weight. The first approach justifies deleting all fictional categories and the second approach removes a need for the closer to give any weight to the keep arguments. Both of thse approaches are entirely wrong. If you look at the log for that day, you'll see numerous fictional categories up for deletion essentially raising the same "all fictional categories have problems" and "you can't apply Wikipedia:Categorization to them" because they are not real. What this comes down to is strength of arguments. The delete reasoning failed to apply a deletion standard that would justify deleting this particular fictional category while keeping other fictional categories. The keep arguments were strong in logic and policy. The close should be overturned. -- Suntag ☼ 14:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "A defining characteristic" with no reason why is not a strong argument in logic or policy. --Kbdank71 15:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd be more than happy to provide sources, but reliable and verifiable sources have not been accepted at CfD. Tell me how many sources you need to convince you and I'll do my best to get them for you. Alansohn (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - DRV is not to continue the CFD. There was no reason at the CFD why it's defining, so it was given less weight in the close. --Kbdank71 15:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - This is not a court of appeals. We're allowed to take new facts into account if they show up. --UsaSatsui (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The nominator argued that killing "someone" is not a defining characteristic and another editor argued that a "choice or preference" to kill someone is not a defining characteristic. Neither of these had anything to do with the actual category for an action of killing a child. The delete reasoning gave no reason at CFD as to why the category was not defining, so it was error to not give less weight to the deletion arguments in the close. As for the keep arguments related to defining characteristics, they argued strong feelings about infanticide and established defining characteristic in the real world through an existing Wikipedia category. In addition to not providing reasons as to why the category was not a defining characteristic, the delete arguments never rebutted these keep assertions about defining characteristics. I don't think the keep reasons related to defining characteristics should have been given less weight in the close. -- Suntag ☼ 22:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as No Consensus. I don't dabble in CFD, but it looks like here there was more discussion to be had about this category and whether or not it was appropriate...I certainly didn't see any sort of consensus on anything. I say overturn, have that discussion, and re-nominate if it becomes necessary. --UsaSatsui (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
overturn per Alan and Suntag. I simply cannot see this as being plausibly backed up by either policy or the consensus discussion. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn A reasonable category, and no consensus to delete it. There needs to be a way of calling those few CfDs worth a more general discussion to sufficient attention. This was not a sufficient discussion to warrant deletion . DGG (talk) 01:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would creating a deletion sorting that focused on relisted discussions be a possibility? (That'd require CfDs to be transcluded and relisted, however) (I'm referring to relisting as in an admin deciding to extend the time of discussion, not as in something coming back after DRV) Andjam (talk) 00:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per the closer's rationale, reiterated above, which I agree with. This falls easily within the reasonable boundaries of discretion for the closing admin. Eusebeus (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Obvious lack of consensus to delete, should have been closed as keep. 71.235.38.171 (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)— 71.235.38.171 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
No other edits by this particular IP address have been made (I haven't checked if any related IP addresses have made contributions, though). I hope no more incidents like this occur. Andjam (talk) 00:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this an "incident". While this would likely be discounted, it does appear to represent a sincerely held view on this situation. Alansohn (talk) 00:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's highly unlikely that the first edit made by a unique editor at a particular IP address would be a relatively obscure discussion at DRV. How long were you a user before you even figured out DRV existed? It could just be a user who is usually logged in but failed to do so this time, or it could be a case of sockpuppetry. We don't immediately assume it's sockpuppetry because of WP:AGF, but it certainly is at least "suspect"or "weird", you might say. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there's evidence of puppetry (sock or meat), an IP user's opinion shouldn't be treated any differently than anyone else's. It shouldn't matter how many other edits they have. --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as no consensus or relist. Bad close. The discussion does not reflect a consensus to delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Policy reasons for deletion outweigh WP:ILIKEIT reasons to keep; a tiny category based on a random intersection of ideas. Guy (Help!) 11:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Calvin Dean – Ask if you would like the content userfied for more work. – Eluchil404 (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Calvin Dean (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (restore \| cache \| AfD)`)` Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL UNDELETE_NOTABILITY David19856 (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Please add the page i created to wiki. It was a page recreated from a deleted page a few months ago. this actor now has much more notability as he has appeared in 4 feature films and tv series. He has recently completed filming the starring role in a film to be released next year worldwide. David19856 (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] This DRV is about National Youth Theatre Calvin Dean (II), not Calvin Dean (I). -- Suntag ☼ 15:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Can you please cite some sources (which should be reliable) to verify the above claims? Stifle (talk) 08:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Endorse due to lack of non-trivial coverage. Stifle (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment - David crozer (19 February 2007), Mountview07 (23 September 2007), and David crozer08 (17 June 2008) previously were noticed regarding deletions of this topic. -- Suntag ☼ 15:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Allow recreation and list at AfD - The last AfD was on 13 March 2007. Calvin Dean is popular with the Cornish Guardian, as there are about eight Cornish Guardian article that mention him. Here's a trivial one "Theatre club celebrates birthday at Gallants". Cornish Guardian. June 22, 2006. p. 12. Calvin Dean, who is just finishing his second year of a BA degree course at the Mountview Performing Arts Academy in London, has been given a full scholarship for his final year.[1]. A non trivial article entirely about Calvin is at "Polruan actor's movie role with Hollywood stars". Cornish Guardian. January 30, 2008. p. 7. `((cite news))`: `\|section=` ignored (help) There probably is other material, but his common name, particular with that of another more popular actor, makes it hard to find soruces. Since the last AfD was on 13 March 2007 and new source material has been generated since then, I think allowing recreation and another AfD might bring out enought sources (or establish that not enought material exists). -- Suntag ☼ 15:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment Two frequently recurring situations. First, as often with performers, but in other contexts also: he is not quite notable now, but after some work in progress is released he probably will be. It seems a little pedantic to delete the article at this point, but on the other hand it's too easy to say that someone will be notable when, .... , and almost impossible to refute. Second, more frequent with athletes but also in all fields, to what extent notability in what amounts to a junior league is notability. Basic questions, and not really helpful to discuss one at a time with erratic results. DGG (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Userfy or allow recreation in userspace, but do not move to article space, or even list at AfD until David19856 or someone else can justify inclusion with reference to WP:BIO or WP:N. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Doesn't yet seem be yet ready for another AfD. Requester is invited work on a draft in userspace, explore whether inside Wikipedia there are other areas of interest for him and should stick to one account in any case. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] below are a few websites which hopefully will get the article on him published on wiki. he really does deserve inclusion, especially if you look at some other actors listed, who have not done much work in the business. http://www.slingshot-studios.com/blog/page/3/ this is from the producers website for the upcoming film 'Tormented'. http://www.britfilms.com/britishfilms/inprogress/?&skip=120 half way down the page lists calvin as being in the film David19856 (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Those don't seem to be independent, reliable sources. I would be looking for newspapers, academic journals, books, TV programmes, etc. Stifle (talk) 08:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Calvin Dean – Ask if you would like the content userfied for more work. – Eluchil404 (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

UNDELETE_NOTABILITY David19856 (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Please add the page i created to wiki. It was a page recreated from a deleted page a few months ago. this actor now has much more notability as he has appeared in 4 feature films and tv series. He has recently completed filming the starring role in a film to be released next year worldwide. David19856 (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This DRV is about National Youth Theatre Calvin Dean (II), not Calvin Dean (I). -- Suntag ☼ 15:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please cite some sources (which should be reliable) to verify the above claims? Stifle (talk) 08:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse due to lack of non-trivial coverage. Stifle (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - David crozer (19 February 2007), Mountview07 (23 September 2007), and David crozer08 (17 June 2008) previously were noticed regarding deletions of this topic. -- Suntag ☼ 15:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation and list at AfD - The last AfD was on 13 March 2007. Calvin Dean is popular with the Cornish Guardian, as there are about eight Cornish Guardian article that mention him. Here's a trivial one "Theatre club celebrates birthday at Gallants". Cornish Guardian. June 22, 2006. p. 12. Calvin Dean, who is just finishing his second year of a BA degree course at the Mountview Performing Arts Academy in London, has been given a full scholarship for his final year.[1]. A non trivial article entirely about Calvin is at "Polruan actor's movie role with Hollywood stars". Cornish Guardian. January 30, 2008. p. 7. ((cite news)): |section= ignored (help) There probably is other material, but his common name, particular with that of another more popular actor, makes it hard to find soruces. Since the last AfD was on 13 March 2007 and new source material has been generated since then, I think allowing recreation and another AfD might bring out enought sources (or establish that not enought material exists). -- Suntag ☼ 15:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Two frequently recurring situations. First, as often with performers, but in other contexts also: he is not quite notable now, but after some work in progress is released he probably will be. It seems a little pedantic to delete the article at this point, but on the other hand it's too easy to say that someone will be notable when, .... , and almost impossible to refute. Second, more frequent with athletes but also in all fields, to what extent notability in what amounts to a junior league is notability. Basic questions, and not really helpful to discuss one at a time with erratic results. DGG (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Userfy or allow recreation in userspace, but do not move to article space, or even list at AfD until David19856 or someone else can justify inclusion with reference to WP:BIO or WP:N. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Doesn't yet seem be yet ready for another AfD. Requester is invited work on a draft in userspace, explore whether inside Wikipedia there are other areas of interest for him and should stick to one account in any case. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

below are a few websites which hopefully will get the article on him published on wiki. he really does deserve inclusion, especially if you look at some other actors listed, who have not done much work in the business. http://www.slingshot-studios.com/blog/page/3/ this is from the producers website for the upcoming film 'Tormented'. http://www.britfilms.com/britishfilms/inprogress/?&skip=120 half way down the page lists calvin as being in the film

David19856 (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those don't seem to be independent, reliable sources. I would be looking for newspapers, academic journals, books, TV programmes, etc. Stifle (talk) 08:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Zero_day_information – Automatically restored as a contested PROD – Stifle (talk) 08:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Zero day information (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (restore \| cache \| AfD)`)` Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Reading from the Standard_(warez), page, this article is referenced. It was deleted for the reason of "non-encyclopedic topic". I fail to see how this is non-encyclopedic. It is one of the major subsets of the warez scene (which is considered a valid topic), and is not given much detail on the general warez pages.
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Zero_day_information – Automatically restored as a contested PROD – Stifle (talk) 08:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reading from the Standard_(warez), page, this article is referenced. It was deleted for the reason of "non-encyclopedic topic". I fail to see how this is non-encyclopedic. It is one of the major subsets of the warez scene (which is considered a valid topic), and is not given much detail on the general warez pages.

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