Seth Andrews (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

From my list of sources at the AfD:

The result was delete. Although the raw count here consists of approximately equal numbers of keeps and deletes, a number of the advocates of keeping the article have advanced rationales not based on recognized elements of WP's inclusion policies. The major problem noted by the advocates of deletion—that the sources available for writing about the topic fail to provide significant coverage independent of the person himself—does not appear to have been successfully rebutted. Deor (talk) 11:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The major problem noted by the advocates of deletion—that the sources available for writing about the topic fail to provide significant coverage independent of the person himself—does not appear to have been successfully rebutted. – the sources I provided were "significant coverage independent of the person himself".

See for example I am One of Many (talk · contribs)'s comment:

I looked at the sources listed by Cunard and Andrews has received coverage in local and regional newspapers from Florida to Arizona. The newspaper articles are written by different reporters for these newspaper. They appear to be based on interviews with Andrews since they include a number of quotes. These sources also assert his notability: he is especially known by fundamentalist Christians in the southern part of the US. It appears to me that these sources establish his notability across the southern US and especially among fundamentalist Christians, and so he satisfies WP:GNG. --I am One of Many (talk) 08:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The other sources also provide substantial coverage of the subject. There was no consensus that the subject was not notable.

Overturn to no consensus.

Cunard (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Many of the keepers are advocating keeps, but they present only primary sources such as news articles; Wikipedia is not a democracy, and as long as the guidelines say "secondary sources", no number of keep voters can make primary sources be secondary. The only solid arguments I'm seeing are by the deleters, especially Ritchie333's comment of 18:23, 13 January 2015: he actually checked for secondary sources, and he noted that they were completely absent. If we ignore the votes that are out of step with reality, this is overwhelmingly a delete. Nyttend (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Closer here. If anyone wants to look at the article, I've userfied it, after a request on my talk page, at User:Staceydolxx/Seth Andrews. Deor (talk) 06:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse- Seems a fair reading of the debate, certainly within administrator discretion. Permit recreation if some non-primary sources come to light. Reyk _YO! 07:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - despite Nyttend's comment, I did find a small amount of independent and reliable third-party coverage, but I don't think it was more than a few sentences. That's not enough to sustain a BLP. News articles can be secondary sources depending on context. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I feel like I'm missing something fundamental. Are people really claiming that news stories in independent, reliable, sources don't count toward WP:N because they are "primary"? That's a really weird reading of WP:N (which doesn't discuss primary sources and instead asks if they are independent). But I'm trying to wrap my mind around this before I !vote here. Could anyone help? Hobit (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:N as WP:GNG when defining the meaning in more detail states ""Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. " Can't say I recall that particular language but it's been there quite while, and even longer in different forms e.g. from 2007 "Availability of secondary sources covering the subject are a good test for notability". --86.2.216.5 (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse delete. Most of those citations are mentions of speaking engagements (minor ones at that), such as would be listed for a speaking engagement of any self-published author (and two are from the exact same source). These do not equate to significant coverage in sources independent of the subject. One of them is simply the local Tulsa Christian radio station's blurb on his broadcasting, before he even became an atheist! Not to mention they are all local. The fact that the articles discuss or quote Andrews is simply because he's speaking there, and this makes them more or less equivalent to press releases. No offense, and no WP:SYSTEMICBIAS, but if you have to dig up an article in Cantonese as one of the only six source-publications you are presenting on an American/Anglophone person, that pretty much speaks for itself. If someone wants to try to recreate the article, I would suggest avoiding any self-citations, and any citations that are announcements/mentions of speaking engagements or that are connected to speaking engagements, or anything from his The Thinking Atheist YouTube channel or website. If there is enough (significant-coverage, independent, reliable, and non-local) material to create and source an article that way, then best of luck. Softlavender (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I looked at this AFD at the time but passed by on the other side because I didn't like the look of the article. But the close here clearly misrepresented the discussion as being a consensus. The discussion was actually evenly split which is the very opposite of a consensus. The claim that one side's reasoning was overwhelmingly superior seems absurd. Several of the delete !voters just ventured WP:PERNOMs while Cunard did a good job of presenting multiple news sources which did cover the subject in detail. Deciding whether the sources did actually represent significant coverage is for the !voters to say, not the closer, and they did not agree. Note also that the whole issue seemed to turn on notability and this is a guideline, not a hard policy, and so there's plenty of discretion in its interpretation which is again a matter for the !voters, not the closer. Andrew D. (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think you need to re-read the closing statement, because you are misrepresenting it. This is even above and beyond that fact that at least two of the !Keep votes were from people (one an IP) who had barely edited Wikipedia before, one of which seems to have been woken from the dead merely to !vote on this AfD. Softlavender (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I'm understanding the matter just fine. Wikipedia is not owned by the experienced elite. New or occasional editors are perfectly entitled to their view on the matter — this is exactly how I got started on Wikipedia myself. If their views go against previous practice then, per WP:NOTLAW, they are entitled to overturn this. The job of the closer to record their decision, not to overrule it. Andrew D. (talk) 11:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh, and just for the record, it was at DYK that I saw this before — I reviewed the article and found it wanting. Andrew D. (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist; the advocates of keeping don't have to show it meets the standards; the advocates of deletion have to show it does not. (I'm not making even a preliminary judgement of wether it should be deleted. DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, you !voted Delete on this and gave a fairly extensive reasoning [1]. I'm just mentioning this in case you did not recall that, since you have so very much on your plate. If you read the closer's statement, he stated that the advocates for keeping did not appear to have successfully rebutted the rationale for deletion put forward by others. Softlavender (talk) 05:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that's accurate anyway. Those wishing to delete cannot prove a negative - there aren't good sources, it's up to those wishing to keep to demonstrate that there are, further valuation of sources against standards is a two way discussion and application of a certain amount of judgement. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 09:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NRVE applies, except in the case of BLPs. There are plenty of subjects which are unsourced yet are notable or proper for inclusion anyways. In this case it would be appropriate to userify it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how that's pertinent to my point. It's not about if the article is currently cited, that's trivially easy to show one way or the other. If the commenters believe there are sources it's trivial to show them by pointing to them, it isn't generating a requirement for them to include cites in the article immediately. On the other hand if they examine any current sources and say these aren't up to snuff, then search a lot and find no more sources which are up to snuff. (a) It's pretty difficult to show the lengths you went to in doing that search and (b) it doesn't mean the sources aren't there you just couldn't find them. This is asking someone to prove a negative which is impossible. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why my !vote here need match that at the AfD; the questions are different. I can think that an article should be deleted, but nonetheless think the close unsatisfactory in view of other arguments or the close rationale. DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you clarify why you think the close was unsatisfactory? Do you think it is unsatisfactory because of the arguments I made in the nomination statement or for a different reason? (I'm asking this because you haven't specified why you think it is unsatisfactory.) Cunard (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the confusion about the burden of proof sufficient for a relisting. You clarified this in the close, but perhaps not enough. I don;think you did wrong, but it was an unsatisfactory discussion. DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This (the original comment) is quite wrong. The burden of proof is on those seeking to include/retain articles, not the other way around (see for example WP:V), and it's most disappointing to see an arbitrator persist in quoting a personal view as though it were policy. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - Discounting entries that are not based in Wikipedia policy or guideline is within admin discretion, and is actually an expectation. No fault found here. Tarc (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. We not only permit closing admins to weight comments and discount those that are non-policy compliant; we expect it. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• weak endorse The sources provided are weak, but reach the bar of WP:N in my opinion. However, most of the keep !votes were really weak (as were some of the delete ones). I'd say a better close was NC, but delete is probably within admin discretion given that the sources are fairly weak. It's borderline. Hobit (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Troll Station (YouTube Channel) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article's continually and rapidly increasing notability (in tandem with a BBC News TV report about them) simply proves that Troll Station is a wholly valid article contribution. Wikipedia is all about informing the public about matters such as these, and with a fast-growing subscriber base and online popularity/status, there is no question that the article should be kept. Reliable sources are in abundance. Also, the deleter of the article did not wait until a concrete consensus was formed. There was an equal number of opinions with the same amount of merit, and despite the deleter protesting that he waited 3 weeks, this has since proved to have not been enough time. Edfilmsuk (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse there were plenty of keep arguments offered that were basically irrelevant: that the subject is popular, has lots of hits or subscribers, it is likely that they will become notable in the future, that the subject is up-and-coming, etc, etc. There were a number of sources presented, however those advocating deletion pointed out that most of them related to a single pitch invasion incident and that the rest were merely reposts of funny videos with little or no coverage of the group itself. These are pretty strong arguments. The source the OP is mentioning [2] is a two minute local BBC News clip reporting on the pitch invasion, I don't think it would have made any difference. The AfD was open for three weeks, which is a very long time for an AfD - they can be closed after one week and almost never last longer than four. Hut 8.5 23:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Sources provided were weak or felt to fall under ONE EVENT. Closer could have gone with NC, but I think delete is a better reading of the discussion in terms of strength of argument. Hobit (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn There was no consensus to delete as the Keeps outnumbered the Deletes and the closer didn't make any attempt to justify the close going against the majority opinion. It was therefore quite contrary to WP:DGFA which states, "respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants. ... When in doubt, don't delete." Andrew D. (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have not counted the nominator, the keeps and deletes were equal in number. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 09:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfD discussions are not closed based on majority vote. Hut 8.5 11:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What we had here was a blatant supervote. Andrew D. (talk) 11:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse non-arguments put forward by the keep side per WP:DGFA taking a look at one sentence as advocated by the previous commenter states "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any).". --86.2.216.5 (talk) 09:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn: YouTube? That's very important.--333-blue 10:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse: following notablity. I've said wrong, not important enough.--333-blue 10:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• There seems to be nothing new for the 'Endorse' argument to say. May I interject with this: what is the purpose of Wikipedia if not to inform people about topics such as these? It wouldn't take long to find Wikipedia pages much less (I may go insane if this word pops up any more) "notable" than the one I am trying to contribute. I am trying to make Wikipedia a better place, and this is being impeded by fairly uptight users who desire to do every single thing 'by the book' as it were. This linear approach is not going to help Wikipedia progress into modern times. There needs to be some leeway. Edfilmsuk (talk) 14:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia defines it's own purpose to be an encyclopaedia, in things like WP:NOT such as not a collection of indiscriminate information, notbility is an implementation of distinguishing what to include. So no wikipedia's purpose is not merely to inform people of any old stuff you want. Wikipedia has millions of articles so your argument that it's struggling somehow is way off the mark. As to the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, please follow the link. To you other stuff might be less notable. maybe it is and at some point may well get deleted, or perhaps it is simply more notable by wikipedia's definition. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 14:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, as "keep because lots of people like it" votes were rightly discounted. The consensus was that the coverage was weak, so, we're done here. Tarc (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I guarantee you that Troll Station will have an article eventually. Perhaps I tried to jump on the bandwagon a bit early. WP:TOOSOON Edfilmsuk (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse for now, but I expect it'll be back. Stifle (talk) 09:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as closer I consider myself properly called out here for not having provided a rationale in what was clearly a less obvious close. That was an error on my part. I felt that many of the keep arguments reflected arguments not grounded in an understanding of Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and I felt appropriately downweighted them. Best, --j⚛e decker^talk 19:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - charges of a "supervote" don't seem sensible. I suspect Edfilmsuk is right that this was WP:TOOSOON and that it will likely be back. I think, then, that the closer got it right but I'm sure well be back here eventually to consider a new draft and a request for permission to recreate it. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Sibanda (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe that with the passing of time a page for Mr. Sibanda should be created. He appears to be on a steady roll in the science fiction world and is now notable as the only one doing what he is doing. The deleting editors had insisted that Mr. sibanda is not notable. He passes Wikipedia Notability requirements as a contributor and pioneer in the field. a neutral panel and not the same editors should look into matter. Also editor flatternutter should be banned from comments on page as she was part of deleting panel when this first came under review. She has systematically abused Wikipedia editing privilege ( including the use of a sock account) to delete Ken sibanda page. See here where without a discussion flatternutter blocked editor seeking to create page:

Please look at "Draft Ken Sibanda" to see her abusive comments, which includes undoing the work of other editors. 150.108.60.10 (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Neither IMDB nor Amazon are reliable sources for a BLP; you don't appear to be presenting any new or substantive evidence of notability here. If there are actual reliable sources that would provide notability now, this is the place to show them to us and make a case other than "he's notable because he does stuff". Incidentally, I do wish you would stop with the personal attacks, if only because they make it painfully obvious that you're the same banned editor who has been at this for years. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• IP, your conspiracy theories are unconvincing. Fluffernutter closed this discussion back in 2011. He didn't nominate it for deletion (nor did he close the discussion) here, though he did contribute and opined for deletion like most of the others there. For those playing at home, this is enlightening. Your draft, quite rightly, has now been deleted as the creation of a site-banned editor. The only way this is going to be resurrected, as far as I can see, is if a long-term editor in good standing (not connected to you or your sock-puppets) presents a solid case here for re-creation. For all of your (4) years of sock-puppetry, abuse, personal attacks, conspiracy theories and anger, you've avoided doing the one thing that might actually prompt neutral, uninvolved editors to seek to create the article in question - going out and securing some significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse mere disagreement with the outcome is not a valid DRV reason. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 09:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Rafferty (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe this page was deleted hastily without proper discussion into reliable sources which have now been provided. After following NorthAmerica1000 advice to bring the case to a deletion review there has been new information and references that has been brought to light which would justify re-enlistement of the page in question. Under Wikipedias terms for notability, many published works and reliable third party references already exist for Rafferty. Entries including official music chart success and listings on official BBC chart pages. This information had been provided to NorthAmerica1000 admin. Furthermore, new information relating to the publishing labels Rafferty has been signed with will also be coming available in the next few weeks which will be more reliable references to improve the article. When the page was originally created, it's originator had explained that it was published too early without reliable sources of information. This has now been rectified so enlistment of the page would be ok under Wikipedia's terms. If there is any more information we can provide please let us know. Thank you for your assistance with this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raffobeast (talk • contribs) 04:25, 15 January 2015‎

• Comment - Raffobeast, you should probably focus your efforts on creating a new article at Draft:Ryan Rafferty which can then be reviewed and accepted. If he really has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources then you'll likely be given permission to recreate the article. Otherwise, you'll need to provide actual links to significant coverage here if you're suggesting such sources weren't considered during the deletion discussion. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Stalwart111 - Thanks for your reply. I thought it was possible if a decision has been made to reinstate the page that this was done on your end? Rather than resubmitting the whole article again? If this is the case then no problem we will do it.

Also regarding links of third party websites , this information was already sent to NorthAmerica1000:

Thanks. Raffobeast (talk) 07:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with those links is that they're unlikely to be considered "significant coverage". There are passing mentions, track listings and self-published blog-type material but nothing we would consider "reliable sources". The one that might qualify says, "Ryan Rafferty, one of Irelands fastest rising DJ talents". "Up-and-coming" and "rising star" type people haven't often not been the subject of the sort of coverage we require. That's why they are described that way. And that single line wouldn't be considered "significant coverage". In my personal opinion, we would need much better sources to justify a new article. But you're free to start a draft and give it a shot. It's just not a particularly good use of your time if you haven't sorted that first. And to be clear, the decision to delete it can be "overturned" here ("at this end") but that would generally require us to find the original decision to delete it was somehow faulty or not compliant with policy. I don't think that's going to happen but you're welcome to make a case. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Stalwart111 - Thanks but the evidence that was provided in the original article did show the topic had gained significant independent coverage and recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor is it the result of any promotional activity/publicity. The decision to speedily delete the article when it's creator hadn't yet completed it was done too quickly and more information is still being gathered. In the meantime is there any way you could reinstate the article and set a deadline for another review on it in due course? Thanks. Raffobeast (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article looks to have been deleted as a result of this discussion though that looks to have been speedily closed based on speedy deletion criteria and consensus there. Whatever was in the original article, it wasn't enough to convince four different editors. If the material there was the same as that provided above, that's no surprise. You're free to start a draft at the link provided above (Draft:Ryan Rafferty) and it can be reviewed (here at DRV) thereafter. Things need to be notable before articles are created here. We don't create articles and wait for them to become notable. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]