Paloma Faith (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I personally think Wikipedia can sometimes be unfair to articles that meets WP:NOTABILITY guidelines

My reason for undeletion is that this BLP meets WP:VERIFY, from personal experiences her recent song is getting heavy airplay by BBC Radio 1 and 4Music, plus some other music stations and 55,400 ghits. But on the other hand, I feel that it is due to poor editing that caused it to be deleted, though I have never seen the article before. Donnie Park (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• List at AfD. This source represents an example of significant coverage in reliable sources, which shows the article merits proper consideration at AfD. I believe it's clearly unsuitable for a speedy.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing admin comments Firstly, I wasn't contacted regarding this concern prior to this being listed here, as is expected per the guidelines for DRV and common courtesy. Secondly, this seems to be a clear non-notable deletion: Epic Records, her recording label, does not list her; counting Google hits is not a measure of notability, and that's a rather low number for a musical artist anyway; she has yet to release any albums, and does not meet any of the other criteria at WP:MUSIC. No references were provided with the article, and it appeared to be a very clear A7 deletion. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Someone should have googled for references before the article was deleted. In this case, three people should have done: the tagger's at fault, and so is the AfD nominator who clearly made no attempt whatsoever to comply with WP:BEFORE. But I also feel the deleting admin should've at least run the article through a google search before speedying.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Send back to AfD and a fish to closer for (apparently) speedying without a search and the DrV nom for not contacting the closing admin first. Hobit (talk) 01:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. AFD a waste of time as the subject is clearly not notable. Her record label doesn't list her, but we should? No. لennavecia 04:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erb? Sony lists her. [1]. I don't know that _not_ listing her would be a reason to not have an article given there are more than a few RSes out there [2], but in any case, she's listed. Hobit (talk) 07:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and send back to AfD. If there's a need to do searches before deciding whether something should be deleted then it's a matter for AfD, rather than speedy deletion. I'm rather dismayed that an admin would provide support to an editor who continually disrupts discussion at AfD by calling for speedy deletion of articles just because he hasn't heard of a particular record label or because someone makes an unfounded allegation of a hoax, and I see examples of this (sometimes with edit warring over speedy deletion tags) from this editor most days. Admins are trusted to prevent this kind of disruption rather than encourage it. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn: here's an assertion of notability, "Paloma Faith looks set to score the highest new entry on the singles chart with Stone Cold Sober (Epic), which should chart in the top 20". --Stormie (talk) 11:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is protected from being recreated for some reason from a long time ago for spam being posted there. Dotty••|☎ 08:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It's got quite a history of spam. It's a forum site? Suggest you create an article in userspace first. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It's actually a well-known (among rugby supporters) news site. I would, however, recommend a userspace draft. Stifle (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm a regular reader of PlanetRugby myself, it's a good site. But yes I agree with the above: definitely there should be a userspace draft establishing exactly how it meets the WP:WEB notability criteria. --Stormie (talk) 03:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Thai (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Deletion was completely unreasonable. Deletion should only be by concensus, but there were two votes to keep and two to delete. Furthermore WP:PORNBIO says that a porn star is notable if they have been nominated for a major award. One of the people voting delete said she was nominated for an AVN award for Best New Starlet, which is a fairly major award. However he voted delete because she wasn't nominated in multiple years! Was this a recent change because I don't remember it, and in any case it sounds stupid; would you say that someone who was nominated for a Best New Artist Grammy isn't notable because they weren't nominated more than once? This needs to be undone and the deletor needs to be trout slapped!SPNic (talk) 02:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• AfD is not a vote. The content of PORNBIO are what they are, the fact you think them stupid isn't that important for this purpose, they are a consensus view. If you think they need changing then the talk page there is the place to raise that issue. Irrespective they are secondary criteria and the expectation still exists they will be covered in multiple reliable sources independant of the subject. This article had one source an interview with the individual in question, at best it fails the independance requirement. The nomination for the award was not cited to any reliable source. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you actually look at the final count? THERE WAS NOT A CONSENSUS? The final count was two to keep, three to delete! How is that a consensus? And shouldn't you log in before you comment?SPNic (talk) 08:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And where did the voter get the information if it wasn't reliable?SPNic (talk) 08:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Read again, AFD is not a vote because it is consesnsus based. i.e. Consensus it not a vote. Stating the numbers and then stating that means there is no consensus is meaningless. Admin's look to the strength of argument based in policy, guidelines etc. which represent a broader community consensus. The closers statements gives and indication of how they read the debate (non vandalised version). The three deletes are mention the requirement for reliable sourcing and reference to the notability guidelines. The two keeps make bald assertions apparently based on personal opinion rather than policy. As to determining reliable sources, see WP:RS. Also see WP:GNG which states - "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.", clearly an interview is not independent of the subject. And no there is no requirement for me to sign in to comment, which since I don't have an account is quite convenient--82.7.40.7 (talk) 08:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • My vote wasn't based on personal opinion, it was based on WP:PORNBIO. And people who can't be bothered to set up an account are in no position to talk about weight of votes.SPNic (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, xe is in such a position. The editor without an account is quite right here. AFD is not a vote, and your "sounds notable to me" does not outweigh the statements that there are no reliable sources. You will start according the editor without an account the same respect that you would accord an editor with an account, right now. Uncle G (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well since WP:PORNBIO says and said at the time you placed the comment "Has received award nominations in multiple year" it wasn't. I can no more read your mind than the closing admin which is why I said "apparently based on...", so you may well have believed that it is covered by PORNBIO, but since it isn't, the net effect is the same. Wikipedia allows non-account editing, if it wanted to do so it could enforce signed in only ( it doesn't). I'm trying to help you understand why the deletion discussion didn't finish the way you think it should, which can help you to resolve those issues such that the article may be possible now or in the future. If you want to ignore that, then it's no problem to me. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't want to ignore that, sorry. I did take your advice and addressed my grievances on the discussion board.SPNic (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted, AFD is not a vote and the closing admin weighted matters correctly. Stifle (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Query — is the google cache version listed above the same as the version considered at AfD?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply There is no substantial difference. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure, AfD is not a vote. Weak arguments will not be considered as much as well reasoned comments; Tabercil's comment quite firmly counters the comment made by SPNic, and "Article shows notability" shows very little knowledge about policy or the article, and gives no insight as to how notability is shown. This was a proper deletion, and even if closed as "no consensus," BLP's default to delete; the result would have been the same. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure, even though I disagree with Hersfold very strongly about BLPs. BLPs absolutely do not default to delete at AfD and there is no policy, and no consensus, to suggest that they do. I've read a number of people saying "BLPs default to delete" and I think it's a very dangerous meme that needs to be robustly challenged every time it surfaces. The only thing on Wikipedia that defaults to delete is an expired PROD; in every other case, deletion is an active decision that someone makes.

  Still, wrong though Hersfold is about that particular matter, I think he is correct to say that the "keep" arguments were substantially weaker than the "delete" arguments in this case.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is offtopic, and I have no opinion on the actual discussion, but it should be pointed out that RfD also defaults to deletion. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure with the same BLP issues as raised by S Marshall. We don't default to delete on BLPs! Hobit (talk) 01:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure, while there were a couple of Keep opinions from editors who believe she is notable, she does not meet the notability standards spelled out in WP:BIO and WP:PORNBIO, and no reason has been offered either at AfD or here as to why she should be considered notable in spite of this fact. --Stormie (talk) 03:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure, the "Keep" arguments were pretty feeble, and were successfully rebutted during the course of the discussion. I agree with the nominator's call in closing this discussion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Endorse closure due to lack of reasoned argument on the "keep" side. I share S Marshall's concern about "BLPs default to delete" being paraded as policy; there is no consensus for a policy like that (which would lead to a large de facto double standard between the notability of living and deceased people if a policy like that became widespread), even though some editors want that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure per S Marshall, Hobit, Stormie, and Sjakkalle. "Keep" voters appear to disagree with the WP:PORNBIO consensus standards, but presented no substantive arguments indicating flaws in the determination of consensus or in the standards themselves, and presented no other arguments supporting notability. THerefore those "votes" were appropriately discounted. I am wary of AFD closures where the numerical consensus (nor non-consensus) is rejected based on the closer's individual interpretation of policy or guidelines, but this is plainly not such a case. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]