Sophie Anna Everhard – Deletion endorsed. There is no consensus below that the close was outside admin discretion, but there is consensus that a new article asserting notability through citations to reliable sources (which the deleted article lacked) would be appropriate if it can be written. – Eluchil404 (talk) 00:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Sophie Anna Everhard (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) There was no consensus for deletion in the AfD, and no reason for deletion was given by the closing admin. Moorsmur (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Weak overturn to "no consensus" – that's a toughy, as a few of the arguments there on both sides were not terribly convincing. But I think cutting all that out, I still don't see a definitive consensus for deletion established. –MuZemike 23:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] The relevant part of WP:ENT requires that the actress "has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". No one in the discussion has shown that she had a "significant role" in two productions - the only one given as significant was Dylan Marvil. I accord less weight to claims that a guideline is satisfied when the argument goes against the guideline's plain text. Also, I should note that ÅlandÖland (talk · contribs) was subsequently blocked as a sock of a banned user. <sarcasm>Oh, and thanks for discussing it with me in advance, you know, as the instructions require. I really appreciate the chance to correct any mistake I have possibly made before being dragged to DRV. </sarcasm> T. Canens (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] That AfD did not appear to contain any analysis of the article's sources whatsoever, and I do not see any evidence that anyone attempted to search for other sources while the debate was ongoing. It seemed to me that both sides thought they could get away with asserting their case instead of discussing the evidence. In fact, I find that AfD wholly unsatisfactory. I'm a bit tempted by MuZemike's view, but on balance I'm not sure I would want to go as far as overturning Tim Song in this case. I'd prefer restore and relist in the hope of getting a debate that's more helpful to the closer.—S Marshall T/C 23:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] The only sources in the article are an IMDB link and a link to the official website. T. Canens (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Which means there are no reliable sources in the article. It remains to be established whether one could be found (and I rather doubt it, but that's really AfD's job). Failing that, the AfD should exhaust the possibility of a valid redirect target.—S Marshall T/C 00:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Within admin discretion, especially once we punt AlanOland's !vote for being (a) crap and (b) from a banned user. But I recognise SnottyWong's delete !vote is not particularly helpful either. In closing based on objective strength of argument, weight must also be given to Glenfarclas's valid replies to the keep !votes. I say "within admin discretion" here because "no consensus" was open to be made as well and I can understand those that would argue that close would have been preferable. But DRV needs to recognise that there are many tough AfD calls and allow reasonable latitude for administrators.--Mkativerata (talk) 01:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Relist in my opinion, the actual article is borderline. (anyone who wants to see it might as well look at IMdB, for that's basically the information present in the article) But Snottywog's !vote should be disregarded entirely based on his self-admitted intention to vote delete on everything helped by the ARS. DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse- Article was relisted so that consensus could be established, and the discussion thereafter was clear consensus to delete. And strongly protest DGG's attempt to discredit Snottywong's opinion by trying to paint him as some kind of knee-jerk anti-ARS zealot. This misrepresents both SW's stated intentions and his actual arguments at the AfDs in question. We've had two drama ridden threads on this issue already, and the overwhelming consensus is that Snottywong has done nothing wrong. So quit trying to find excuses to get people you don't agree with excluded from these discussions. Reyk _YO! 07:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Those voting keep did not adequately demonstrate the assertion of notability to meet WP:ENT. No sources were presented to show this person meets the GNG. Quantpole (talk) 08:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 09:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion by default due to nominator's failure to pursue his request by responding to queries. Stifle (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] overturn to NC per MuZemike. Neither side had a strong enough argument to claim consensus to do anything. Hobit (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. I'm of course the one who nominated this article in the first place, but I do feel that this was well within the bounds of of admin discretion. Numbers-wise, the !votes ran four-to-two for deletion, discounting the vote of a blocked sockpuppet. Argument-wise, there's not much to say other than that the actress had one role in a straight-to-video movie, and two unimportant bit parts in single episodes of TV shows. The delete !votes established that; the keep !votes showed essentially no understanding of how to try to connect the actress's roles to to any actual guideline like WP:ENT. Glenfarclas (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Closure as delete seems to reflect consensus of the discussion and the status of the old article. That said, nothing prevents an editor from beginning a new draft in user space, adding reliable sources and addressing the concerns raised in the AfD, and then sending the closing admin a note about the new article. If the closing admin agrees that the new article is sufficiently improved, the new article gets moved into mainspace. Otherwise, we go back to DRV to determine that the new version is sufficiently different from the old that G4 doesn't apply. Also, the old article was pretty bare bones, but I have no objections to restoring it to place it in the WP:Article incubator. —C.Fred (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Sophie Anna Everhard – Deletion endorsed. There is no consensus below that the close was outside admin discretion, but there is consensus that a new article asserting notability through citations to reliable sources (which the deleted article lacked) would be appropriate if it can be written. – Eluchil404 (talk) 00:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

There was no consensus for deletion in the AfD, and no reason for deletion was given by the closing admin. Moorsmur (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak overturn to "no consensus" – that's a toughy, as a few of the arguments there on both sides were not terribly convincing. But I think cutting all that out, I still don't see a definitive consensus for deletion established. –MuZemike 23:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant part of WP:ENT requires that the actress "has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". No one in the discussion has shown that she had a "significant role" in two productions - the only one given as significant was Dylan Marvil. I accord less weight to claims that a guideline is satisfied when the argument goes against the guideline's plain text. Also, I should note that ÅlandÖland (talk · contribs) was subsequently blocked as a sock of a banned user.
<sarcasm>Oh, and thanks for discussing it with me in advance, you know, as the instructions require. I really appreciate the chance to correct any mistake I have possibly made before being dragged to DRV. </sarcasm> T. Canens (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That AfD did not appear to contain any analysis of the article's sources whatsoever, and I do not see any evidence that anyone attempted to search for other sources while the debate was ongoing. It seemed to me that both sides thought they could get away with asserting their case instead of discussing the evidence. In fact, I find that AfD wholly unsatisfactory. I'm a bit tempted by MuZemike's view, but on balance I'm not sure I would want to go as far as overturning Tim Song in this case. I'd prefer restore and relist in the hope of getting a debate that's more helpful to the closer.—S Marshall T/C 23:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The only sources in the article are an IMDB link and a link to the official website. T. Canens (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which means there are no reliable sources in the article. It remains to be established whether one could be found (and I rather doubt it, but that's really AfD's job). Failing that, the AfD should exhaust the possibility of a valid redirect target.—S Marshall T/C 00:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Within admin discretion, especially once we punt AlanOland's !vote for being (a) crap and (b) from a banned user. But I recognise SnottyWong's delete !vote is not particularly helpful either. In closing based on objective strength of argument, weight must also be given to Glenfarclas's valid replies to the keep !votes. I say "within admin discretion" here because "no consensus" was open to be made as well and I can understand those that would argue that close would have been preferable. But DRV needs to recognise that there are many tough AfD calls and allow reasonable latitude for administrators.--Mkativerata (talk) 01:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relist in my opinion, the actual article is borderline. (anyone who wants to see it might as well look at IMdB, for that's basically the information present in the article) But Snottywog's !vote should be disregarded entirely based on his self-admitted intention to vote delete on everything helped by the ARS. DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- Article was relisted so that consensus could be established, and the discussion thereafter was clear consensus to delete. And strongly protest DGG's attempt to discredit Snottywong's opinion by trying to paint him as some kind of knee-jerk anti-ARS zealot. This misrepresents both SW's stated intentions and his actual arguments at the AfDs in question. We've had two drama ridden threads on this issue already, and the overwhelming consensus is that Snottywong has done nothing wrong. So quit trying to find excuses to get people you don't agree with excluded from these discussions. Reyk _YO! 07:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Those voting keep did not adequately demonstrate the assertion of notability to meet WP:ENT. No sources were presented to show this person meets the GNG. Quantpole (talk) 08:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 09:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion by default due to nominator's failure to pursue his request by responding to queries. Stifle (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
overturn to NC per MuZemike. Neither side had a strong enough argument to claim consensus to do anything. Hobit (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I'm of course the one who nominated this article in the first place, but I do feel that this was well within the bounds of of admin discretion. Numbers-wise, the !votes ran four-to-two for deletion, discounting the vote of a blocked sockpuppet. Argument-wise, there's not much to say other than that the actress had one role in a straight-to-video movie, and two unimportant bit parts in single episodes of TV shows. The delete !votes established that; the keep !votes showed essentially no understanding of how to try to connect the actress's roles to to any actual guideline like WP:ENT. Glenfarclas (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Closure as delete seems to reflect consensus of the discussion and the status of the old article.
That said, nothing prevents an editor from beginning a new draft in user space, adding reliable sources and addressing the concerns raised in the AfD, and then sending the closing admin a note about the new article. If the closing admin agrees that the new article is sufficiently improved, the new article gets moved into mainspace. Otherwise, we go back to DRV to determine that the new version is sufficiently different from the old that G4 doesn't apply.
Also, the old article was pretty bare bones, but I have no objections to restoring it to place it in the WP:Article incubator. —C.Fred (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Vayden – Uncontested request to allow article, based on acceptable userspace draft. Unsalted title and moved article to mainspace – Jclemens (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Vayden (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) A couple weeks ago, the Vayden wikipedia page I edited was deleted for reasons I now both completely agree with and understand. Since then, I've put together a more fitting page, yet it seems I cannot recreate it with the new content because "it's currently protected and can only be edited by administrators." I was then directed toward this page. I'm unsure on what step comes next, so here is a link to my proposed page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MetalMilitiaESP/Enter_your_new_article_name_here MetalMilitiaESP (talk) 22:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Unsalt and allow recreation – I think the userfied copy looks good to place into the mainspace. –MuZemike 23:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Speedy unsalt because a user in good standing wishes to add good faith content and we boast that this is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. No prejudice against a later AfD discussion if necessary.—S Marshall T/C 23:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Allow recreation. I'm sorry if the directions were confusing but you managed to do exactly what you should have done. You've written a 'userspace draft' that clearly addresses the concerns that led to the deletion of the page and so I and others now support allowing its recreation. However, unsalting and allowing the page back will not prevent it from being nominated for deletion via WP:AfD if someone still fells that the band fails to meet the relevant notability criteria (WP:BAND). Eluchil404 (talk) 03:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Vayden – Uncontested request to allow article, based on acceptable userspace draft. Unsalted title and moved article to mainspace – Jclemens (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

A couple weeks ago, the Vayden wikipedia page I edited was deleted for reasons I now both completely agree with and understand. Since then, I've put together a more fitting page, yet it seems I cannot recreate it with the new content because "it's currently protected and can only be edited by administrators." I was then directed toward this page. I'm unsure on what step comes next, so here is a link to my proposed page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MetalMilitiaESP/Enter_your_new_article_name_here MetalMilitiaESP (talk) 22:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsalt and allow recreation – I think the userfied copy looks good to place into the mainspace. –MuZemike 23:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy unsalt because a user in good standing wishes to add good faith content and we boast that this is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. No prejudice against a later AfD discussion if necessary.—S Marshall T/C 23:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation. I'm sorry if the directions were confusing but you managed to do exactly what you should have done. You've written a 'userspace draft' that clearly addresses the concerns that led to the deletion of the page and so I and others now support allowing its recreation. However, unsalting and allowing the page back will not prevent it from being nominated for deletion via WP:AfD if someone still fells that the band fails to meet the relevant notability criteria (WP:BAND). Eluchil404 (talk) 03:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Joseph P. Overton – Decision endorsed – T. Canens (talk) 02:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Joseph P. Overton (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) Wiki stated I could create the article Joseph P. Overton, who is not a living person but quite dead and also the originator of the Overton Window theory of policy and consequences among government and the public. Please restore the article as Joseph P. Overton is not copyrighted material nor was any content lifted word-for-word from any source. I did gain biographical info to write this stub from the Center where he was working when he died in 2003. Please restore this article. Thanks... Wikistubwriter (talk) 02:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] According to google cache the article contained the sentence: He was a member of the State Bar of Michigan and was appointed by Gov. John Engler to the Michigan Appellate Defender Commission upon recommendation by the Michigan Supreme Court. [1] says - He was a member of the State Bar of Michigan and was appointed by Gov. John Engler to the Michigan Appellate Defender Commission upon recommendation by the Michigan Supreme Court. which appears a direct copy to me. However being a word for word copy isn't a requisite for copyright violation. If you can read both and easily see that one was derived from the other then that's likely a copyvio. I can't write my Barry Rotter novel about an aspiring wizard, it'd be a copyvio without copying stuff word for word... --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Speedy endorse, clear-cut copyvio, no question of restoring. Of course there is nothing wrong with the nominator rewriting in his own words. Stifle (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Strong endorse per Stifle and 82.7.40.7. Said material is under copyright by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy (as stated on the bottom of that web page). We don't copypaste or plagiarize here; we write stuff in our own words and then cite where we get our stuff from. –MuZemike 23:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Joseph P. Overton – Decision endorsed – T. Canens (talk) 02:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wiki stated I could create the article Joseph P. Overton, who is not a living person but quite dead and also the originator of the Overton Window theory of policy and consequences among government and the public. Please restore the article as Joseph P. Overton is not copyrighted material nor was any content lifted word-for-word from any source. I did gain biographical info to write this stub from the Center where he was working when he died in 2003. Please restore this article. Thanks... Wikistubwriter (talk) 02:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to google cache the article contained the sentence:
He was a member of the State Bar of Michigan and was appointed by Gov. John Engler to the Michigan Appellate Defender Commission upon recommendation by the Michigan Supreme Court.

[1] says - He was a member of the State Bar of Michigan and was appointed by Gov. John Engler to the Michigan Appellate Defender Commission upon recommendation by the Michigan Supreme Court.

which appears a direct copy to me. However being a word for word copy isn't a requisite for copyright violation. If you can read both and easily see that one was derived from the other then that's likely a copyvio. I can't write my Barry Rotter novel about an aspiring wizard, it'd be a copyvio without copying stuff word for word... --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy endorse, clear-cut copyvio, no question of restoring. Of course there is nothing wrong with the nominator rewriting in his own words. Stifle (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong endorse per Stifle and 82.7.40.7. Said material is under copyright by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy (as stated on the bottom of that web page). We don't copypaste or plagiarize here; we write stuff in our own words and then cite where we get our stuff from. –MuZemike 23:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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