Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 24

:{{DRV links|Mike Brown (goaltender)|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Brown (goaltender)|article=}}

With no closing comment by the admin on a close case such as this I went to the admin first to see what his closing rational was but I found it somewhat lacking. As such I am bringing it here for review. The topic meets WP:ATHLETE in that he has played in a fully professional league (for 5 seasons), passes WP:N and WP:RS in that there were multiple independant sources on the article at the time of deletion. (Which based on the reason given on the closing admins talk page it sounds like he didn't know there were sources on the page.) It is unfortunate as the apropriate wikiproject was not notified that this was put up for afd (which I know is not manditory), alot more sources may have been found and I know a number of other editors such as myself would have !voted against deletion as well as found sources. At the very worst it should have gone no-consensus. However, I think a keep is appropriate. Djsasso (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• Closing admin Commentators disagreed over whether or not he passed WP:ATHLETE, I found the arguments that there were no sources indicating a significant professional career (note this is different than proving mere existence) to be more convincing than the arguments that other similar articles exists or that sources might exist that showed notability. MBisanz ^talk 23:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
• I only want to note that in order to meet WP:N he just has to have multiple articles written about him in multiple WP:RSes. How significant his professional career is or is not, is not a factor. -Djsasso (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn sorry MB, but I disagree. Evidence in the AfD and article showed he passed WP:ATHLETE via playing at a fully professional level and there are [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22Mike+Brown%22+goalie+saginaw&cf=all add'l sources]. I don't think this comes anywhere near WP:OSE, the subject is notable. StarM 23:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensous. Source provided, some liked it others didn't. Meets the letter of WP:ATHLETE, but some think not the spirit. I see reasonable people disagreeing in reasonable and policy-based ways. Given the number of arguments on both side (close) and their strength (good) I see no consensous. Hobit (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn – Mike Brown has played in the American Hockey League, which is a fully professional league. That is all that is required for notability by WP:ATHLETE. There are dozens or hundreds of hockey players with comparable careers. All of the AfDs for such players that I have come across were quickly closed as keep and I am surprised this one was deleted. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn – The subject clearly passes WP:N as WP:ATHLETE. He has played in a fully professional league, and has done so more multiple years. Considering we have kept players that have played only 1 game in a fully professinal league, this one is a no brainer. -Pparazorback (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn: Basically just repeating what I said at the AfD, the article clearly passes all notability requirements. As I mentioned, career significance isn't really a factor in determining if one is notable. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 04:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)*
• This caught my eye when I relisted it. The nominator said someone who passes WP:ATHLETE must first pass WP:GNG.. I've seen this point argued before. That is, "An article must pass WP:GNG as well as "WP:FOO". (athlete etc.) " If this were true then there would be no point in having "WP:FOO"s. If it can be verified that he played in a fully professional league then Overturn. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse due to failing WP:V. If, and only if, it can be verified that he played in a professional league, I would overturn. "Verified" means by reference to multiple independent sources. A google search is not a source. Stifle (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• Actually, verification requires only one RS. Notability requires more than one. But seriously, [http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=72575 hockeydb] (and before you object, hockeydb has been deemed reliable at FAC). But, even if you don't like that, how about [http://www.nhl.com/ice/player.htm?id=8470745 nhl.com]? [http://www.wildwings.de/web/geschichte/saison-200809/torhueter/mike-brown/ here] he is with his German league team. [http://www.oursportscentral.com/services/releases/?id=3412223 Press release] mentioning that he had been playing for Providence of the AHL, but was returned to Long Beach of the ECHL. Shall I continue? Resolute 16:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• Thank you, that'll be fine. Overturn. Stifle (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• There were 3 sources on the article at the time of deletion. -Djsasso (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn. At close of AfD, was No consensus if not keep. Again, appeal for closers to give a rationale in contended debates. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Close as No Consensus or relist, clearly there wasn't a consensus to delete, but I don't feel there was a consensus to keep either. My option would be to close as no consensus or because there are so many people that think it should be overturned, relist it. Tavix |  Talk  14:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn I voted to delete on the basis of inadequate sourcing, but a subsequent comment made it clear that my reason was not relevant. Closed before I had a chance to retract; the closing admin should have seen that also. DGG (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Sydney Rae White|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sydney_Rae_White|article=}}

Discussion concerning notability was clearly still ongoing, and no clear concensus or significant majority had been achieved - 4 supported retention, and 3 supported deletion, making a clear weak majority for retention. One of those supporting deletion did so on the grounds that "no sources" were provided, which is incorrect. Additionally, users supporting retention had clearly stated that research to support notability was still ongoing, and new avenues were being explored in order to find useable reliable sources. Given that research supporting this article was clearly still ongoing, I believe that deletion of this article by {{user|Fritzpoll}} was clearly premature, ignored the genuine impartiality of some of the sources provided in the article, and based solely on some arbitrary time limit which makes no allowance for most people with real lives beyond Wikipedia to do the research needed to reach a definitive decision concerning the notability or otherwise of this article. Emma white20 (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. The discussion was left open for the full seven days. Two of the keep !votes were from anonymous users, and these are customarily discounted. On the other than, there were four users (you forgot the nominator) who supported deletion, a two-thirds majority by numbers. The points that the supporters of deletion raised, which were that there were no reliable sources, were not addressed. We recently extended the time limit from five days to seven days for exactly the reason you suggested. We can't wait forever. Stifle (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn to keep None of those arguing for deletion addressed the claim that she meets WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENTERTAINER. As she seems to and no one made arguments why that's not enough, I have to say the arguments for keeping were much stronger. Hobit (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment form closing admin - I believe Emma does not understand our policy with regard to closing AfD discussion. When the query was raised on my talkpage, I responded thusly: The deletion discussion was closed after 7 days and 1 minute exactly, so in time terms was not premature. I am obliged to weight the arguments within a debate, and the inability of participants to find reliable sources to establish notability in some form or another indicates a good reason to delete, rather than unsubstantiated claims of meeting our guidelines. I am happy to reconsider undeletion when you can present me with the supporting references, or alternatively you may advance to have my decision reviewed at WP:DRV, although this will be on the basis of procedure and not necessarily on the validity of your argument from the debate. Given this, I am naturally happy for DRV - I obviously believe that my action here was correct, but I am not beyond reproach. However, I do contend the notion that the close was premature Fritzpoll (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion Prior to deletion, a number of independant sources were added to the article, including reports about her appearance in the new production of Quadraphenia - A fact which was not properly addressed by those proposing deletion except for an isolated comment that the articles were "not specifically about her". I would also contend that the sleeve notes of an original cast recording of a major musical production, while not specifically mentioned in the Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources, do qualify as a reliable and impartial source for establishing notability - A simple listing of the performers appearing on the CD and the parts they play has no real inherent bias towards any of them, and so is simply a statement of fact, which can be easily verified by anyone who goes and finds a copy of the CD in the same way as they would find and consult a copy of a printed book if that was given as a reference. I therefore believe that the requirements for notability were met, and that reliable sources were provided in support of that fact. Taking all of that together, I genuinely believe that deletion of this article was wrong. Emma white20 (talk) 00:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• :Given that you are the nominator of this DRV, this secondary statement does not really need a bold !vote. Your arguments are suited to an AfD, but DRV is not a second go at AfD. It is to correct procedural problems in the close, whilst your arguments relate to aspects not included in the notability guidelines - an issue examined in the AfD. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn I believe that notability has been proven, and the article should be kept. WP:CREATIVE states that a person should have "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions". By my interpretation of things, this means featured roles where they are given a specific credit. And I'd say that an Andrew Lloyd Webber show qualifies as a notable production, as does the other CD she appears on, and also the new performance of Quadraphenia. And those supporting deletion incorrectly asserted that both of these CDs were inadmissable on the grounds that they were "her own", when in truth she is just one of many seperate performers on them. Also, to quote WP:FAILN, "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." As it had been clearly stated that work was still ongoing to find suitable supporting references, and that work had recently uncovered new references to her current appearance in Quadraphenia, it seems to me that deletion was definitely premature and inappropriate. Sandi saraya (talk) 08:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn I did not comment on the original Afd, as it is not one of my usual subjects. But the [http://uk.imdb.com/name/nm1973971/bio IMdB] entry is enough to prove the basic uncontroversial facts, which in this case are very clearly enough to unmistakably show notability. The entry gives (incomplete) references to reviews and awards, which should have been followed up. Adequate attention to the article during AfD would have taken care of this. May I recommend the WP:Article Rescue Squadron for help with this. DGG (talk) 23:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• :IMdB to establish notability? Incomplete even? Synergy 15:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

:::to establish unchallenged routine facts about a career. yes. To show that someone is notable by means of having an entry there, of course not. DGG (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn As I understand the stated guidelines for notability, it has been clearly established for this article to a far greater degree than it has for many other minor biographies on Wikipedia - Many of which seem to have been here for considerable lengths of time without anyone questioning their notability. If there's evidence she's appeared in featured roles in several notable productions which are already listed here (such as the ALW show and ocr, and her TV work), then she's notable, and it doesn't matter what form the evidence takes (newspaper reports, CD packaging notes or whatever), as long as its verifiable and independent. As it seems that notability has been established for this article, then deletion on the grounds that it is not notable was clearly wrong. Does the article need improvement? Yes, quite clearly, but it should have been tagged as such, and not flagged for deletion. JS3C (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• Suggestion: Based on the discussion here and the notes on my talk page, it is apparent that sources are missing at present that might establish notability (Emma white20 is still looking for them according to my talkpage). What I never got a chance to suggest to Emma before bringing the matter here was the possibility of userfication so that the sources can be added, once found, and the article moved back to article space. I maintain that the discussion didn't establish the existence of said sources, and that admins are simply meant to close discussions in the state that they are at the end of the required period of time. This seems to me a reasonable compromise that would get the article closer to article space reinclusion, but in a better state that s less vulnerable to returning to AfD. Thoughts Fritzpoll (talk) 09:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

:: I disagree - I believe that sufficient verifiable sources already exist and are referenced in the article (although maybe not in the generally accepted format) to establish notability. Admittedly, things like the notes included in CD packaging aren't usually used as Wikipedia references, but as long as they're not from CDs which are specifically hers, and are just used to confirm that she did indeed appear on the CD in a certain role, then what's the difference between using them and using a website (such as IMDb) which lists the cast of a movie as a source for an article? (And, let's face it, how many articles on Wikipedia have used IMDb as an unacknowledged source for things like cast lists, even though IMDb is not accepted as a reliable source?...) If they've not been written by anyone directly connected with her, they meet the guidelines for being independent of the subject. As they will have had to be reviewed by someone from the record company before release, they've been through an editorial review process in just the same way as a magazine article. And as anyone can go into a shop or library and find a copy of the CD, they meet the guidelines for being verifiable. So why are people objecting to them being used as reliable sources to establish notability? - I can't find anything in the various guidelines that says they're not acceptable as sources. Maybe that's a subject which needs further discussion elsewhere, but if they provide clear evidence that she did indeed appear on the CDs stated, then I believe that, along with the other independent sources given (especially concerning the production of Quadraphenia), clear notability has been established in this case. As for the mentions of her appearances in various TV productions, a quick look at WP:RS uncovered the following comment; "However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third-party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the internet." As the various programmes have been broadcast by reputable companies such as the BBC and, if it can be confirmed that archived copies exist, that clips can be found online which show her in the productions, or that they are available commercially on DVD, then WP:RS appears to say that they can be used as reliable and verifiable sources in their own right. Just as an experiment, I've just checked on Play.com, and at least one of the shows, The Sarah Jane Adventures is available on DVD, and is therefore verifiable. Taking what is stated in WP:RS, any of the broadcast shows she's appeared in can, with proper referencing, and provided the existence of some form of archived copy can be confirmed, be used as references to support notability. And if the TV shows are acceptable under WP:RS, then what does that say for the CDs being used as references? From the statement above, they certainly seem to be admissible as references... I also believe that userfication would make it more difficult for others to contribute to the article - The edit history shows a number of editors making positive contributions in the form of references and other edits. (Maybe I'm wrong on that, but that's how it seems from my POV...) I still maintain that this article should be undeleted, and then tagged as needing help with improvement, and think that userfication would be effectively as bad as leaving the article deleted. (Sorry for the huge essay - I got started and just couldn't seem to stop!!!) JS3C (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

:::I wasn't aware of that guideline comment, even though I had a read of WP:RS, but you seem to be right - It does look like TV programmes and CDs can be quoted as references, which means that there seems to be plenty of evidence for notability. I also agree with you on the idea of userfication being a bad idea, and I've got no problem with it being tagged as needing improvement, because it does... Emma white20 (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

:::The guideline comment is irrelevant to establishing notability - WP:N requires significant coverage in third-party reliable source. Verifiability is not enough, and the contention within the discussion is essentially that there isn't enough significant coverage, so arguments relying solely on verifiability are not enough - something I appreciate that you may not understand, JS3C since you only registered an account a few days ago.

:::Emma white20 says on my talkpage that sources to establish notability are still being searched for - I offer userfication as a happy compromise - allow the article to be improved to prevent it being nominated for AfD almost immediately again with all the drama that entails. If this DRV overturns, this will almost certainly be what happens. A userfied article can be moved back to the article space as soon as you've chucked a few more sources at it and that'll be the end of the matter. I don't understand how trying to placate people who aren't sure of this article's notability by adding some sources before restoration is "as bad as leaving [it] deleted".

:::Finally, you need to stop re-arguing points from the AfD. DRV is about the close and whether I followed the deletion guidelines for administrators appropriately - it is not a second go at the AfD per the instructions at the top of WP:DRV. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Keep, I mean Overturn - Between her lead West End work and lead television work, she easily passes WP:CREATIVE. I understand that AfD closers frequently ignore anon input, but sometimes anons have it right too. --Oakshade (talk) 05:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• :For the record, I evaluate their opinions in the same way that I evaluate others. It isn't votes that count, it's the strength of arguments. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

:::For the record, re: your comment above, I wasn't re-arguing points from the AfD - I was pointing out those who supported deletion in the AfD discussion did so on the grounds that no verifiable and reliable sources at all existed to support the article. However, as I pointed out above, WP:RS indicates that the TV shows and CDs themselves can be used as references. Therefore, their arguments were faulty, and those arguing that references do exist were the ones who were correct in that matter. And so your action in deleting this article was based on the acceptance of a faulty argument, and that if you know the guidelines as well as you seem to think you do, you should have known that the CDs quoted could be accepted as references, as could the TV shows if that had been done. As for the question of notability, and the need for significant coverage, I've just done a Google search, and found a new [http://www.whatsonstage.com/blogs/manchester/2009/04/24/sydney-rae-white-on-quadrophenia/| interview with her] from just a few days ago (April 24), plus a number of other articles such as [http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/entertainment-news/Four-Jimmys-and-a-scooter.5168121.jp| this one], all talking about her involvement in Quadraphenia and giving details of her earlier work. Most if not all of these qualify as reliable and verifiable third-party sources (for example, the Blackpool Gazette is an established newspaper), and the number and type of sources certainly qualifies as "significant coverage" - The Google search threw up about 80 results, around 50 of which were about Quadraphenia, and if that's not a "significant" result, I don't know what is!!.... But, to return to the main point from the start of this comment, it appears that your evaluation of the arguments in AfD was in error, as you should have known that those arguing that the CDs could be used as references were correct, and so the argument for deletion, based on the contention that no reliable references existed, was incorrect. From my reading of the AfD discussions, the arguments for keeping were much stronger than those for deletion, and that your actions in deleting the article ignored the fact that several admissible references were included in the article. You also say above that you take anon editor opinions into account as well? If that's true, then the "rough consensus" in the AfD discussion (including the anon editors) seems to have been for retention, not deletion. (As you can see, I've taken a look at wikipedia:DGFA, and believe that you didn't follow those guidelines as well as you could have done in this case. Did you actually violate any of them? You'll no doubt argue that you didn't, although others may see things differently based upon their own interpretation of the guidelines and the situation here...) If the article is restored, then all of the new references can be quickly added and, once that's done, I don't think anyone will feel the need to question her notabilty in the future, and so we'll avoid the whole AfD thing again. JS3C (talk) 01:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|User:Cunard/Article/Lazy Dog Cafe|xfd_page=|article=}}

This article was created three times at The lazy dog by {{user|Matt12122}}. It was subsequently deleted under G11 and A7 and then salted. Using a copy of the deleted article, I have rewritten the article at User:Cunard/Article/Lazy Dog Cafe. I request that an admin move my userpage draft to Lazy Dog Cafe and then undelete and history merge the content from The lazy dog to Lazy Dog Cafe to satisfy the GFDL policy. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

::Now moved, per request. --Oscarthecat (talk) 07:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

:::Thanks! The history merge of The lazy dog to Lazy Dog Cafe still needs to be done, though. Cunard (talk) 07:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

::::Never mind. There appear to be [http://www.lazydogcafe.com/ two] [http://www.thelazydog.com/ different] bars/restaurants with this name (Lazy Dog Cafe; Lazy Dog Sports Bar and Grill). I wrote about the [http://www.lazydogcafe.com/ wrong restaurant]. Cunard (talk) 08:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• Withdrawn: Per my above comment, the history merge is not needed. Please speedy close this discussion. Cunard (talk) 08:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)