Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 October 25

:{{DRV links|Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association/Ultra Game|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sandbox/test|article=}}

More specifically I'm requesting the reinstatement of

• Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association/Fixed
• Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association/Radial Ultra Cross
• Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association/Radial
• Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association/Ultra Game
• and all other pages linked from Template:Word Association

The word association subpages were not nominated, tagged nor discussed in the linked MfD discussion, nor were regular contributors notified. Several precedents have shown support for keeping the word association games. See:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandbox/Word Association (speedy keep, August 2005)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association (3rd nomination) (keep, March 2007)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association (2nd nomination) (no consensus November 2006)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sandbox/Games (Word Association kept, January 2007)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 4 (keep undeleted)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association (4th nomination) (no consensus, July 2007)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association (5th nomination) (speedy keep, August 2007)

I can't find the other, more recent, discussions I know that I have resulted in "keep" outcomes, nor the 2nd nomination at MfD the outcome of which I presume was "keep" or "non consensus"), nor at least one other DRV that I remember commenting on.

Given that no discussion to date has resulted in a consensus to delete the word association games, to delete them with no discussion seems wrong to me. To be clear, although I favour keeping these pages I have no prejudice against anyone who wishes to discuss their deletion again, but only if all parties are informed about the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: The discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sandbox/test was relisted. It lasted longer than usual MFD discussions. But it was still unanimous consensus to delete. This is also as per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Wikipedia is for writing encyclopedia articles, not playing silly games like this. -- Cirt (talk) 13:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• The nominated page was actually Wikipedia:Sandbox/Test, which was not the word association game or any of its variants. The users of the Word Association pages were not notified of the discussion (none of the pages were tagged, none of the regular players were notified), and if you read the above linked discussions (and others I'm still searching for) there has never been consensus that WP:NOTWEBHOST applies to community pages and other such pages have been regularly kept at MfD and other discussions that included reasons advanced for why they beneift Wikipedia. See for example the third comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Department of Fun (3rd nomination) (several of the deletion discussions about the Department for Fun, that have all ended in Keep outcomes, mention Word Association specifically. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Department of Fun (4th nomination) for links to them all). Thryduulf (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn to restore Word Association games only to be honest, I wasn't aware that anything useful was hosted under Wikipedia:Sandbox/ subpages when I commented on the MfD. The few pages I glanced at looked like test pages. Games that have an encyclopedic purpose are acceptable. Gigs (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

:What is the encyclopedic purpose for these pages? -- Cirt (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

::As stated on the page, helping people learn how to make blue links and find articles they are interested in editing. I admit it's not earth shattering, but there's a fundamental difference between an encyclopedic game and someone hosting fantasy football or a collaborative vampire story in userspace. The focus here is on the encyclopedia itself. Gigs (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Relist at MfD - Despite the fact that these pages are utterly silly and clearly not useful in any way towards building an encyclopedia, the nominator has a point that they were technically not deleted correctly (although in Cirt's defense, I would have done the exact same thing if I were closing the MfD). The MfD started out with a nomination only for Wikipedia:Sandbox/test. The !voters noticed that there were other useless subpages and suggested that they also be deleted, and everyone agreed. However, the subpages were never tagged for deletion, so editors who are watching those pages would have never known about the discussion and didn't have the opportunity to contribute to the discussion. It truly would be a complete waste of everyone's time if these were relisted, but if we're going to do this right, then let's do it right. In my opinion, these should all be deleted per WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:UP#GAMES, the latter of which I realize is not technically applicable in this case, but the spirit of the policy is clear. If this page were in userspace, it would be deleted per WP:UP#GAMES, but it certainly has no place in the WP namespace either. SnottyWong ^spout 14:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per WP:IAR. I changed my mind, this is too stupid. It's just not worth wasting everyone's time with another MfD just to be able to say, "We followed the rules." SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 14:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse game deletion - If we need to get a little IAR'ish to finally overcome the "keep, its a fun harmless game" nonsense that infests these sorts of attachments, then so be it. This sort of thing is stripped out of userspace routinely; there's no reason to keep one under the Sandbox of all places. Admin discretion here is correct. Tarc (talk) 14:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Regarding the location, yes the sandbox is not ideal. If I'd have thought of it before the out of process deletions today I'd have proposed moving them to subpages of the Department of Fun (and will do if they're reinstated). Given that they've been discussed as part of the endless attempts to delete the dept of fun, and formed part of the repeated conensus to keep, it would make sense. Just because something is not in the correct location though does not mean it's ok to delete it without discussion though. Thryduulf (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• The location is a minor point, and moving it elsewhere would not alter my opinion. If you want to play games, login to facebook and join Farmville. Tarc (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Which unlike the word association games does nothing to promote or develop the encyclopaedia and does nothing to facilitate the Wikimedia community that makes Wikipedia what it is and has been valued time and time again in every discussion that touches on it. Thryduulf (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• I suppose learning new articles means nothing? And also stress-relief? Simply south (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• : Not sure what you mean "learning new articles", if you mean finding new stuff Special:Random is pretty good, WP:THERAPY, if people are stressed because of wikipedia the best relief is to go elsewhere for the relief. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

:::Learning about different articles and learning some links between articles. As for doctor's prescription, that is a bit extreme and i'm meaning a place to unwind but still be encyclopaedic. Simply south (talk) 23:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• RESTORE. Why was nothing posted on the Word Association page? I was on there just a couple of days ago and no notice was on the page. I believe a notice on discussion is required on the relevant page. Squad51 (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• comment If consensus here is to keep the pages deleted, then :Category:Wikipedia Word Association and Template:Word Association (both currently nominated for deletion, but both discussions not unlikely to be closed pending the outcome of this DRV) can probably be speedy deleted under WP:CSD#G8 (pages dependent on a deleted page). Thryduulf (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Restore and move per the lack of notice to the involved parties, the history of previous retention, and the fact that these games aren't anywhere near as stupid as "secret pages". Language games aren't the same as Farmville. Jclemens (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion of these games per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Wikipedia is not a game server for pages that do not contribute to building the encyclopedia. Cunard (talk) 21:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn. Per the MfD process, pages nominated for deletion should be notified of their impending doom. This was not done, so process was not followed. Most of the arguments above could then, properly, be aired when the pages are listed for deletion in the correct way. Bigger digger (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• List at MfD I shall probably to delete these in the end, but they have not yet had a proper discussion. I agree with Jclemens that more can be said for them than for some of the game pages that have recently been deleted. There has not been a consensus to delete all games automatically, and the XfD cited was not sufficient warrant to do so. They need individual or related-group specific discussions--however, the keeps of all such games several years ago are unlikely to represent the present consensus. DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Restore. The affected pages weren't tagged, and there was minimal participation in the vote, accordingly. Whether or not you are in favor of keeping the pages, you shouldn't deny them the process any other page would get. —Kymacpherson (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
• Restore, apparently out of process, but list at MFD where I would be minded to delete. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
• Relist at MfD for further discussion, as is clearly desired. --SmokeyJoe (talk)
• Restore with no prejudice against listing at MfD. I see no reason why it was necessary to ignore the rules in this case, so the process ought to be followed.—S Marshall T/C 17:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
• Relist IAR is not an end-run-around discussion and process. There appears to be enough controversy that a (real) discussion is warranted. The original decision was flawed because it did not consider renaming as a possibility and deleted because of the name/location, not the content. --NYKevin @915, i.e. 20:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
• Restore per S Marshall. I see no reason to ignore process here. This isn't a good case for IAR. Hobit (talk) 00:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• Restore and list at MfD. This shouldn't have been bundled with the other deletions; in fact, it wasn't but somehow happened anyway. If the pages need deleting, there's no harm in waiting a week or two for them to go through the process normally. --ais523 13:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore Word Association games only. Out of process deletion. These games are a great way for readers to navigate Wikipedia and find interesting articles. -- œ^™ 01:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• Overturn and restore Word Association pages. Proper notification and procedure was not followed under the guidelines for MfD. Also, there are more than a dozen other similar activities still valid under "Games" at WP:FUN — Michael J 03:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Al Gore III|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Gore III (8th nomination)|article=}}

An editor recreated the same content as the deleted version, and said on the talk page that he was unable to use DRV for some reason. So this is a nomination on his behalf.   Will Beback  talk  03:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - This editor has not actually articulated a reason to overturn the last AfD, nor evidence provided that this person's notability issues have changed since then. Simply "I think it's time it is reconsidered" is not a valid reason. Tarc (talk) 05:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Move to userspace Prior consensus was that the article as it existed should be deleted and nothing appears to have been added to the article to better support a claim of notability. Article should be expanded in userspace with additional reliable and verifiable sources establishing notability and a move to mainspace should be considered based on any expansion. Alansohn (talk) 18:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse & Salt We have a clear consensus and the recreated article is not that of someone notable enough for their own article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• My view is that we should actually delete the article and redirect, which was never done (it was just redirected). If there is information that the subject has done something new to increase his notability then that would be an appropriate time to revisit the issue.   Will Beback  talk  22:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - I'm not seeing any recent news or links which move this BLP forward. If the only events we have documented are traffic citations and personal injuries, there's just not enough material to justify its own article. BusterD (talk) 09:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Emily Schooley|xfd_page=|article=}}

• Overturn

Ms. Schooley has a significant fanbase, as can be demonstrated by her Twitter and Facebook followers:

• http://www.facebook.com/EmilySchooley
• https://twitter.com/the_emi

Note that her Facebook page has more fans than that of fellow Canadian actress, Kate Hewlett, who has an established niche fanbase for her work in sci-fi shows.

• http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kate-Hewlett/11899401858

Ms Schooley's page was submitted for deletion by someone from Frozen North Productions as a spiteful move. She is a Toronto actress with a rising film career chronicled in WP:N sites like Fangoria, as well as reputable newspapers such as the Kitchener-Waterloo Record (see: http://news.therecord.com/printArticle/225554). She is a featured speaker and guest at known conventions such as Polaris (formerly Toronto Trek) and Notacon, and several of her films have screened internationally (Orange Girl, a short film has screened in Canada, the USA, and Britain, for example.)

Her article should not have been deleted in the first place, and myself and other fans are willing to lobby to have it kept.

Her films that we believe meet WP:NACTOR are:

• 'Black Eve' (principal role)
• http://www.fangoria.com/?option=com_content&view=article&id=187:first-comments-and-exclusive-pic-from-black-eve&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=167&reset-settings
• http://www.bigdaddyhorrorreviews.com/2010/09/interview-with-ryan-m-andrews-black-eve.html
• http://www.28dayslateranalysis.com/2010/03/black-eve-lives-in-your-nightmares.html

• 'One Week in Windchocombe' (lead role)
• http://horrornews.net/6994/one-week-in-windchocombe-new-indie-scare/
• http://www.fatally-yours.com/news/indie-haunted-house-tale-one-week-in-windchocombe-begins-shooting-directed-by-f-y-contributor-jeffery-j-timbrell/
• http://www.28dayslateranalysis.com/2010/08/indie-horror-alert-one-week-in.html

• '140' (principal role - segment)
• http://www.seattleweekly.com/movies/140-962899/
• http://www.denverfilm.org/filmcenter/detail.aspx?id=23209
• http://events.nbc13.com/movies/show/148765-140

• 'Small Town Murder Songs' (more minor role, but screened at Toronto International Film Festival)
• http://tiff.net/filmsandschedules/tiff/2010/smalltownmurdersongs

She has also been directly interviewed by independent film sites, such as:

• http://www.ferntv.ca/FERN_TV/Schooley_and_Jovey.html
• http://filmsnobbery.com/interviews/emily-schooley-interview/

These are sites that regularly cover notable independent film news.

As was said by another Canadian wikipedia user:

The sad reality is that the current rules defining "notability" are strongly skewed against the Canadian entertainment industry. If Toronto was Los Angeles or New York, an actress of equal notability as Emily would have significantly more online references, put online by the promotional "machines" that exist within those cities. But it simply doesn't work that way on Canada (or most of the world, for that matter). Despite the fact that Emily is known for her film and (national) television appearances here in Canada as well for as her acting classes and workshops, those appearances and works aren't plastered all over the internet in the same way that similar work on New York or Los Angeles would be. This simple imbalance is, in my humble opinion, causing a mass extermination of articles about Canadian talent (actors, models, musicians,etc.) across wikipidia, not to mention articles about other aspects of the Canadian entertainment industry (e.g. awards such as The Constellation Awards having their articles deleted because of lack of "notability" internationally). This has got to stop. Wikipedia should be a balanced, INTERNATIONAL reference, and we as Canadians should be able to look up and research elements of our entertainment culture here as easily and readily as Americans. I therefore ask that we support a KEEP for this article, and furthermore consider ways that this imbalance around "notability" might be resolved so that we can put a stop to the slow disappearance of Canadian entertainment industry information from Wikipedia.

(As a side note, the simple fact that Emily has been a "notable guest" at events such as Polaris (http://www.tcon.ca/polaris/modules/content/index.php?id=291) should, imo, convey her notability in this country. But again, it appears that Wikipedia's guidelines do not give reasonable weight to local indicators such as being honoured in such a manner at major events outside of the USA, sadly). --guru (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

There was NOT a general consensus to delete - many non-sis also came along and voted to keep. Bytemeh (talk) 03:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• There's a reason that the Deletion Review instructions say to visit the talk page of the deleting administrator first, you know. Uncle G (talk) 12:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Worth noting that Kate Hewlett is an actual actress with roles in legitimate TV series like Kevin Hill (UPN), Psych (USA), Flashpoint (CBS), Stargate: Atlantis - what difference does it make how many facebook fans she has? I'll refrain from commenting any further since I feel like enough people's time is continuing to be wasted on this topic. Deepsix66 (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)Deepsix66

::Comment: Ms. Schooley has also been on television - recently on This Movie Sucks! - as well as in films that some Wikipedia regular contributors felt were notable. Bytemeh (talk) 08:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

:: Comment: There is no comparison between what is essentially a cable access show on a Hamilton local station and shows that have aired on national US networks like UPN/CBS/USA etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepsix66 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

:::Comment: Not going to bother arguing the other specialty channels it screens on - you seem to have an unhealthy bias against anything to do with Emily and my efforts would be wasted. Bytemeh (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse - You seem to misunderstand the purpose of Deletion review. First, you need to alert the closing administrator. Second, Deletion review is for pages you believe the administrator closed unfairly. It's clear that you're looking to restart the deletion discussion. Deletion review is not AfD round two, it's for when you believe an administrator misinterpreted the consensus. The deletion review page clearly states: This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome. I'm endorsing because there was a consensus to delete. GorillaWarfare(talk) 17:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC) signature added by Bigger digger (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

::Comment: I feel differently - there was not a sweeping consensus to delete. Completely aside from SPAs, there were several strong arguments to keep that were posted by established Wikipedia users. I'm not trying to re-open the AfD debate, I'm saying that I do not think equal weight was given to the arguments to keep vs delete. Bytemeh (talk) 08:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse as noted above, DRV is not AFD round 2, specifically, in big bold letters at the top it states very clearly: "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome". The consensus was clear and the debate was flooded by sockpuppets/SPAs voting keep, which is never a good sign. Also, while not related to this DRV I did read the first few posts on your blog and every single one of them was an angry feud against people you've worked with, one of whom even took you to a collections agency! I know DRV isn't a good place to give anyone career advice but damn, it has to be said that it comes off as very unprofessional and may be a clue to why you haven't been able to find work significant enough to pass our guidelines for actors and entertainers. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

::Comment: I'm not Emily, sorry. She probably won't ever see your message. However, if you'd bothered to actually read rather than skim her blog, you'd see that she's taking the time to stand up to a man who scams and harasses artists, nevermind that she's also brave enough to speak out against harassment from a former employer, which is who submitted her article for deletion in the first place. Bytemeh (talk) 08:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse per the above two. Deletion review is available where deletion process has been violated. When a deletion review relates to the outcome of a deletion discussion, I would apply the Wednesbury test to see whether deletion review should interfere — did the closing administrator give weight to something to which he should not have given weight, did he omit to give weight to something to which he should have given weight, or did he arrive at a decision at which no reasonable administrator could have arrived? Only if one of these three criteria applies is it appropriate for deletion review to substitute its judgment for that of the closer.
  For the purpose of clarity, this unreasonability test applies to deletions after a discussion — speedy deletions etc. should not be encompassed. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

::Comment: I believe the closing admin did not give equal weight to the valid keep arguments by established Wikipedia users. Bytemeh (talk) 08:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• I see an unpleasant irregularity in the discussion that complicates this. I definitely do not approve of Jrtayloriv's re-organisation of the debate to filter new users' contributions to a separate section; there are good reasons why that's not okay. I suspect that whatever Jrtayloriv's intention might have been, his re-organisation had a chilling effect on the discussion and may well have stopped some users from contributing. I'm not thrilled: problems like this is why the number of active wikipedians is declining. I'm also of the view that whether or not Cirt's conclusion in this case was correct, what we've failed to do is show FairProcess. Further, I'm mindful that the discussion was disrupted by legal threats, personal attacks, implications of sockpuppetry and other implied insults in the text of the discussion, direct accusations of sockpuppetry in the edit summaries, and in fact a truly deplorable amount of sanctionable behaviour.

  I have not seen the text of the original article but at the moment I'm definitely leaning towards overturn and discuss it properly.—S Marshall T/C 21:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: The version that was deleted is substantially the same as the version currently userified at User:Misssinformative/Emily Schooley DGG ( talk )

:::Comment: When orginally submitted for deletion, the article was in this state: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Misssinformative/Emily_Schooley&oldid=379231342 Much work had been done between that version and the one that was deleted. I am only speculating, but it would seem the article's original creation, many subsequent edits, and deletion were a source of discouragement to the original creator, who wanted to contribute to getting the Toronto arts scene more recognition, something I am wholly in favour of. Many of the WP: NPA edits on the original AfD discussion took out some valid points, and edits to Delete votes were done much later than edits to Keep. The whole discussion, imo, was a mess and did fail FairProcess. Prior to deletion of said comment, Jrtayloriv posted a PA regarding Emily's demo reel. Aside from other judgments, his, Deepsix66, and several others' comments were not in line with WP:NPOV; Deepsix66 also failed to WP:AGF in his original PROD request, stating that the article was submitted by Emily herself when the user creating it had already stated otherwise. Addionne, who bothered to spend some time researching Schooley, changed his vote from delete to keep upon the discovery of additional information. That should be fairly telling. Bytemeh (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

::*Yes, we understand that. Particularly the part about "getting the Toronto arts scene more recognition"—and indeed getting more recognition for Emily herself. These were clearly the purposes of the article. Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't work that way. It's not the case that you can add a Wikipedia article in the hope of becoming more notable. Instead, you must become notable in your own right before you get a Wikipedia article. The behaviour of the "keep" side in this, with the threats, the large number of new accounts, and the many attempted rebuttals that don't show an understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, is very familiar to us at DRV and I would normally disapprove. You will definitely not help your side by responding to every single remark at this DRV.

In this case, however, the behaviour of the "keep" side has been counterbalanced by what I see as equally deplorable behaviour on the "delete" side. There were those who sank quite low in their attempts to see this article deleted and as a matter of principle, those people should not get what they want. Also, we need to show that our processes are transparent, intelligible and fair. Not only must justice be done, it must also be seen to be done.

What will help you now is not further argument, but further reliable sources. One piece of evidence is worth a hundred wordy rebuttals.—S Marshall T/C 09:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse The close was correct, I do not see how any other close was possible. There is no way she meets the usual guidelines, either those specifically for performers or the GNG. Nor does she meet a level of apparent importance, shown however informally, that one would be justified in keeping the article as an exception. The lack of understanding of our standards is shown by the fact that the lead sentence of even the currently revised userspace article continues to call her an " up-and-coming " actress. That this still needs to be said even by her most active proponents indicates the inevitable judgment of not yet notable. The reorganization of the article should not have been done: admins are not (usually) idiots and know how to discount !votes from spas. Speaking of which, I am quite aware that the user who initiated the AfD did so only to remove the article. That is irrelevant to the merits, and no reasonable admin such as Cirt would be influenced by it one way or another. though I must admit that the unreasonable animus expressed does see to put the equally unreasonable support in perspective.I suggest at the end of the discussion deleting the user space draft and blanking this discussion and the AfD, in order to protect the subject, by not making she and her fans look unnecessarily ridiculous on a very public site. That someone claiming to be her--and whom, based on the arguments, might well be--joined the discussion, is still no reason not to protect her, in the BLP spirit of doing no harm. Should she eventually become notable this need not be on her public record. I also note the exceptionally nasty done of the discussions, and some formal warnings -- at the least -- are in order once the matter is concluded here. Normally I would endorse S Marshall's suggestion of relisting a dispute as contaminated as this one, but I think it will just lead to the further embarrassment of all concerned. If it does take place, it would be best if none of the people contributing to the original debate took part, and I would be prepared to invoke IAR and topic-ban if necessary. DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

:Comment: It be in good faith to contact her to confirm, and perhaps get more details about why this is all happening. Bytemeh (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

::I think we have been trying to tell you that the question is whether the notability of the subject meets the standard, not why someone has proposed the article be deleted. Neither is it relevant to the question of meeting our standards whether the person commenting under her name is actually the subject. That would be relevant only if she herself were requesting deletion, which seems to be the opposite of the case--we give in some circumstances respect to a marginally notable subject's request not to have an article. We do not give any attention to a subject's request to have one. The proper way to deal with complaints that Wikipedia is being used for harassment is through WP:OTRS. DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

::: Sorry, I'd meant to ask that as a question, not a comment. And that is fair - I am trying to find additional sources that show she does meet WP:NACTOR, as well as point out some of the ways in which the original AfD could have been better-handled. Bytemeh (talk) 02:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse - This was a good close that reflected consensus from a convoluted AfD. I agree with others that the "sorting" was unnecessarily polarizing. VQuakr (talk) 03:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse. The sorting was not a good idea, but any "chilling effect" is probably only for SPAs whose comments would have been discounted anyway. Thus I don't see a reasonable probability that, but for the sorting, the result would have been different. T. Canens (talk) 13:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Overturn. As per argument above listing notable projects, speaker credentials, and valid WP:RS sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.188.217 (talk) 19:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

:::Comment: To the person above: you might want to sign-in if your IP is shared. The IP has been used very recently for vandalism and personal attacks related to this situation. Your points might be better accepted if you are not associated with it. Puffinpencil (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse: For pity's sake, DRV isn't "You should overturn it because I don't like the result." Leaving aside complete irrelevancies such as how many friends she has on Facebook (I've a 19 year old friend who has half again as many) or the fairness of the situation that obscure Toronto actresses don't gain as much press attention as prominent New York actresses, there are two premises I'd like to attack. To wit: the knee-jerk assumption that the only reason an editor would propose an article for deletion is out of malice, and that Wikipedia has some duty to promote a particular country's (city, school, region) people and institutions out of "balance" or "fairness." Neither are supported by Wikipedia policy or guideline, and both are nonsense.  Ravenswing  20:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn. Several film projects she has done are notable, as outlined above (140 was covered in Wired.com) - not to mention that she is an invited/notable guest at conventions. That should say something. Edfan77 (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC) — Edfan77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

:*Comment: I've been an invited guest at conventions; that doesn't make me notable. In any event, notability is not inherited, and one doesn't pass WP:BIO through association with a film. Beyond that, consensus has already ruled on whether or not Ms. Schooley was notable, as Wikipedia guidelines define "notability." DRV is for judging whether the deletion debate was improperly closed. Do you have any valid policy grounds upon which to claim that it was?  Ravenswing  13:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion; allow restoration to userspace or incubator. While I do not consider the segregation of !votes from new editors to be good practice, neither do I consider it to have tainted the AfD. That said, I call out this quote from the editor who opened the review: "myself and other fans are willing to lobby to have [the article] kept." This is not AfD revisited. However, if the fans think the article can be improved to overcome the concerns raised at AfD, then working on the article in userspace or the WP:Article Incubator may be an appropriate next step. —C.Fred (talk) 03:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)