Laura Massey (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

On June 14th Laura was the keynote speaker at the 2010 E3 Xbox 360 Media Briefing for Microsoft debuting a revolutionary motion controlled video chat system named Kinect chat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinect Laura appears in this video at 02:03 http://cnettv.cnet.com/e3-2010-microsoft-kinect-xbox-360/9742-1_53-50088986.htmln Bawitdaba1337 (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• And? Is there more to come? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • there is a little more in the article; I restored it for discussion. DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• … and, from looking at a random selection of past revisions, a lot of it is just bad writing and bad content. One revision chides the biography's subject for not being able to upgrade a personal computer, for example. There's not a single source cited in the article, nor ever was by the looks of things (although I've not checked all revisions). Two editors in the AFD discussion actually tried to look for sources, and reported coming up empty-handed. And Bawitdaba1337 hasn't even addressed the sourcing question at all. Policy on this is very clear. Biographies must be properly written and properly verifiable. No sources existing means no article. The closing administrator appears to have quite properly put policy into practice. Uncle G (talk) 00:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The strength of argument, measured objectively, was overwhelmingly on the delete side of the discussion. Throw in the verifiability problems in respect of a BLP and this close was well and truly within the admin's discretion. The new event in June 2010 could only change things if that caused the subject to be covered in reliable independent sources. Such coverage has not been presented.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- I also feel that the delete side made the stronger arguments and that the closing admin correctly judged consensus. Reyk _YO! 05:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse it could have been closed as no consensus or delete, but delete was probably the better option. There just isn't anything in the way of independent reliable sources required by WP:BIO. I suspect we'll have an article on her at some point... Hobit (talk) 09:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Lack of sources, lack of evidence of notability, the decisions follows policy. Dougweller (talk) 18:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse I think "no consensus" would have been a better close here, but I can't really argue that the closer misread consensus.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn It strikes me that Laura is now a major part of the Microsoft Xbox teams "public face", her recent notable performance at the E3 keynote and continued present on industry podcasts shows this. Surely that is reason enough to have this overturned, I know i came here to try and find out more information on her..--Lgladdy (talk) 06:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're not in the business of making up badly written biographies from whole cloth purely in order to satisfy the desire to know about people that the world hasn't yet documented. Uncle G (talk) 02:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, BLP with zero reliable sources. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse No reliable sources. This individual might meet notability at some point in the future, but at this point there doesn't seem to be a reason to think otherwise. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Flip Muro (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

under WP:RS#Self-published sources ""Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.

If a music producers works are listed on the most reputable blogs in the format, as well as easily able to be fact checked by comparing it to 100's of other smaller independent blogs, especially if the blog in question is affiliated with a major radio station in the largest market in the U.S. wouldn't that be grounds to consider it one of these "unique" circumstances? music, Hip-hop music in particular, is becoming increasingly internet driven. Many new artist break through using blog sites and youtube and have legitimate careers. Many choose not to sign with major labels or don't have large marketing budgets but rely on sites like youtube and blogs to promote there material and reach there fan base. If there is video evidence to prove that these works exist as well, if there is BMI performing rights society records to substantiate these claims wouldn't it be fair to say that this individual deserves some small form of recognition?

MY page was cited for speedy deletion by malik shabazz due to lack of resources because none of the 100's of blogs, youtube videos and major and independent record label releases featuring these works with UPC codes and both physical and digital distribution were enough to convince him that this person was relevant. Yet here is a page created by malik himslef for a band which he is no doubt a fan, but has even less verifiable references then I have listed and certainly have less legitimate credits to there name

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burnt_Sugar

why is it fair for this page to exist and mine to be deleted?

here are legitimate blog's industry standard ones that show works by this producer

http://hiphopgame.ihiphop.com/news.php3?id=5081 http://www.hiphopdx.com/index/news/id.10574/title.inspectah-deck-announces-manifesto-for-march-23-release http://www.prefixmag.com/reviews/inspectah-deck/manifesto/37352/ http://nahright.com/news/2010/02/18/inspectah-deck-manifesto-track-list/ http://hiphop-n-more.com/2010/02/inspectah-deck-manifesto-album-cover-track-list/ http://www.wutang-corp.com/forum/showthread.php?t=90472 http://www.undergroundhiphop.com/store/detail.asp?UPC=CHR3007CD

here is an example of one of the sites I have listed above which contains works from this producer, which was used as a suitable reference on a wikipedia page for the same artist that the producer has worked with. Why is it ok to use this blog as a reference for the artist, but not the producer?

as listed on the artists wikipedia page under references # ^ http://www.wutang-corp.com/forum/archive/index.php?t-50744.html

this is just a small example of why these references should be considered suitable, I can list many many pages with music producers that have less in terms of references and I can show many more examples of this producers works.

respectfully yours,

Nhw001123 Nhw001123 (talk) 19:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion I have reviewed the articles provided by Nhw001123, and none are reliable sources that provide significant coverage of Jon Flip Muro. Those that may be reliable, such as this one, are not in depth enough to be considered the substantial coverage required by Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (music). Nhw001123's comment about other Wikipedia pages lacking sources is invalid per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Cunard (talk) 06:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vampire-queen.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Not only did the only other editor engaging in discussion produce an argument transparently contrary to the Wikipedia non-free content policy as well as to the relevant WikiProject's manual of style, but WP:FFD clearly states that "files that have been listed for more than 7 days are eligible for deletion if there is no clear consensus in favour of keeping them." This seems to suggest that a result of 'no consensus' (as the closing admin ruled in this case) should default to deletion. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 17:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Question as closing admin: When has it ever been the case that "no consensus" defaults to delete on any XFD nomination? The full sentence at WP:FFD which you partially quote reads, "Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for deletion if there is no clear consensus in favour of keeping them or no objections to deletion have been raised." That seems to indicate that a no-consensus close defaults to keep, just like all the other XFD processes. Explain to me why I am wrong. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Which part of the wording "if there is no clear consensus in favour of keeping them" do you think suggests that images without a clear consensus to keep should be kept? ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 21:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  This has come up before at DRV. Our deletion process says that no consensus defaults to keep for FFDs. I think the FFD wording identified by Treasury Tag is at least ambiguous and at worst contradicts the deletion process guidelines. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse keep, as Wikipedia:Deletion_process#FFD clearly identifies "no consensus" as a Keep. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:FFD clearly identifies "no consensus" as a delete. Do you perhaps think it would be easier to sort this disparity out rather than simply choosing which position to take based on whether or not you like the image in question? ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 21:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Classic no consensus and our deletion process does say that no consensus defaults to keep. However I recognise that (1) as I say above, the text on WP:FFD can be read to mislead; and (2) I think there is good reason for FFDs involving non-free images to default to delete but that change would require an RFC process and shouldn't be imposed on this DRV. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment—would it make everybody's life easier if I withdraw this DRV and simply re-nominate the image in the hope of garnering a clearer consensus, in that case? ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 21:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  That would be a Speedy Keep, actually.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, because it clearly meets at least one of the speedy-keep criteria </sarcasm> ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 21:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  This DRV could, by consensus, resolve to relist the discussion (I wouldn't oppose that). And re-nominating a "no consensus" is not generally considered disruptive although doing so immediately after the FFD's closure might be seen as bad form. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't have as much experience with FFD as I do with AFD but I'll give this one a shot. WP:NFCC is a "policy with legal considerations" and that means that it's enforced "prescriptively". If an image is taken to FFD because the nominator feels that it fails NFCC 8 and makes a good case, then that image should be deleted unless someone can provide a damn good reason why it should be kept. If 8 editors show up and say "Keep OH PRETTY PICTURE" the file still gets deleted even though technically there's "no consensus" to delete the image. However, the discussion at issue here was mostly a back and forth exchange between the nominator and one other editor, both of which provided opposite but plausible interpretations of NFCC 8. Therefore I endorse the close as defaulting to "keep" with no prejudice against a speedy renomination. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse close per Ron. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]