Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 April 23

:{{DRV links|Tom Del Beccaro|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Del Beccaro|article=}}

WP:BEFORE did not appear to have been conducted. I have found several articles that give the subject significant coverage, including the [https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article19436328.html Sacramento Bee], [https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Tom-Del-Beccaro-Ex-GOP-Chairman-And-Walnut-Creek-Resident-enters-US-Senate-Race-in-California-301468281.html KNTV] hosting an article written by the Associated Press, [https://www.mercurynews.com/2015/04/26/former-gop-chairman-tom-del-beccaro-of-lafayette-enters-2016-senate-race/ Mercury News], [https://www.760kfmb.com/article/entertainment/radio/mike-slater/local-election-spotlight-tom-del-beccaro-senate-hopeful/510-2bc0805b-0776-48be-b257-69f1a1cb313d KFMB-AM], etc. While most of the coverage about the subject revolves around the 2016 United States Senate election in California, that means the subject at least falls under WP:BLP1E, and as such per WP:POLOUTCOMES, should be preserved as a redirect to 2016 United States Senate election in California#Republican Party. Subject also has received some coverage as the CA GOP Chairman, and has written for Forbes, and Fox Business. RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 23:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I closed the AfD as delete simply because nobody expressed any desire to keep the article and all the arguments looked well reasoned and within policy; I wouldn't judge an argument simply on who made it per se but I've seen {{u|E.M.Gregory}} consistently talk a good argument over numerous AfD nominations, often as "keep", so I'm not surprised to see a "delete" !vote from him gathers consensus. I can't really put it much simpler than that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
• Question for User:RightCowLeftCoast about purpose of this DRV. Was this an error by the closer, an error by the nominator (which is not in the scope of DRV), or significant new information? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
• Allow re-creation in Draft Space if the issue is new information. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

*Endorse if the issue is an error by the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• {{reply|Robert McClenon}}The closure Ritchie333 looks like they followed consensus, which is fine. That said I am presenting new information that was not mentioned in the AfD. Additionally, I have no way of knowing what was in the previous article, to see whether it contains content which shows that the subject is notable beyond BLP1E. And yes, IMHO the nominator made an error.
• {{reply|Robert McClenon}} If I was closing this discussion, I would find your two comments, above, to be confusing. Consider making life easier on whoever closes this and striking whichever one doesn't apply, so the closer need not have to guess what you really meant. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - The confusion is the result of the filer having confused the DRV observers as to what the basis of the DRV request is, but I have struck the Endorse, not because I think that there is an error by the closer, which there isn't, but because that doesn't seem to be the issue here. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

::Apologies in advance, I have not been involved in AfD in quiet some time, so I maybe a bit rusty.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• Clarification - Then my recommendation is to allow re-creation in draft space followed by review. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse A lightly attended AfD, but one where the consensus was clear, and I don't see any articles presented here which talk about him significantly outside from his candidacy. Running for office does not entitle you to a Wikipedia article. SportingFlyer T·C 05:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse. I'm confused about the arguments citing WP:BLP1E and WP:POLOUTCOMES, as both of those argue for deletion. There's no new information presented here; just more routine coverage of the same thing. A google search for [https://www.google.com/search?q=Tom+Del+Beccaro+senate&oq=Tom+Del+Beccaro+senate&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l3.338j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Tom Del Beccaro senate] yields 46,600 results. Adding a date restriction of [https://www.google.com/search?q=Tom+Del+Beccaro+senate&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:2017&ei=Rc_BXPTlIqexggej8ZzwBg&start=60&sa=N&ved=0ahUKEwi0nN3nxOvhAhWnmOAKHaM4B244UBDy0wMIPQ&biw=1085&bih=766 2017 to the present] gives 62 results. Nuff said. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse perfectly valid close and I think any attempt a recreation would need to have more than just coverage of the 2016 Senate race. Unelected candidates for office are not usually notable unless they have some other source of notability. In this particular election the candidates from both parties all competed in a single primary and the top two proceeded to the general election, and the subject came fifth, behind two other Republicans. I don't think there's any point in restoring the article to turn it into a redirect to the election given that the subject didn't play a huge role in it and the deleted article barely even mentions the election (it was mostly about the subject's role as the chair of the California Republican Party). Hut 8.5 21:23, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

::{{reply|Hut 8.5}}, would there be opposition for Tom Del Beccaro to be recreated as a redirect to the campaign article?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 03:52, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

:::No, I don't object to it being recreated as a redirect. You wouldn't need to come to DRV to do that by the way, there isn't anything stopping you from just doing it. Hut 8.5 06:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

::::Perhaps then it would be best if I withdraw this review, recreate the article as a redirect, and request the history of the old article to be included in the history of the redirect? --RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 06:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

:::::that's one way; the other would be to recreate in Draft space. DGG ( talk ) 08:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

::::::How about this then. Let's recreate the article, reduce it down to a redirect, and leave it at that? If the subject gets significant coverage for more than the one event (the election)(subject was chairman of CA GOP, but most of that content was about the party and not the chairman), then the article can be changed back to a normal biography article.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 19:56, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Persian Medium Fiona|xfd_page=|article=}}

This deletion was done in error. Fiona, like many accepted psychics & mediums is a network television guest, radio show host and a social media star who has over 1.2 million followers on Instagram, 1/2 million on YouTube and thousands more via other media. She broadcasts a show on FCC licensed radio stations (WZWK, Greenville, SC & CIRR, Toronto, Canada) She has worked over 20 years at her craft and is a well respected member of the metaphysical field. Some of the psychics you have accepted have been inspired by her. Deleting her article does not speak well to Wikipedia's credibility. Please reinstate this article. Thank you. Markiemark123 (talk) 08:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• The instructions for this page state "Deletion review should not be used when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this". Can you explain why you chose not to follow this instruction? Stifle (talk) 08:46, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• Deleting admin comment: {{ec}} The page was deleted per WP:G11 because its language was purely promotional in tone and served no other purpose but to promote the subject in question. Her (potential) notability was not a considering factor and anyone believing her to meet the notability guidelines is welcome to create a new article that is neutral in tone. That said, judging from googling her name and the lack of reliable sources in the deleted page, it's doubtful that this person is indeed notable, so I foresee that any such article, even if not promotional in tone, will be deleted. Regards SoWhy 08:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• Can't see the deleted article to tell if G11 was met, but my psychic powers would lead me to believe it was, so endorse on that basis. As to wikipedia's credibility I guess I'm someone who would believe wikipedia's credibility is damaged supremely by including such nonsense as psychics, if it damages credibility with those gullible enough to buy in to this should be of no real concern. That said wikipedia is concerned with what the world at large deems notable, not what your or I think of the topic, so there should be no more to evaluating if the person meets the required standards and inclusion if they do. This would (a) require a NPOV article and (b) meet the inclusion standards, these standards are not based on big numbers (though big numbers can be an indicator that suitable evidence is available), nor on assertions about being well respected etc. --81.108.53.238 (talk) 11:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• Deletion of promotional material helps to maintain Wikipedia's credibility, rather than call it into question. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse. While the article was tagged with both A7 and G11, the deletion was (correctly) performed under G11 only. The promotional language makes the content unsuitable for an encyclopedia and that isn't changed even if the subject meets our notability criteria. I advise the nominator to seek some form of review to ensure their article is neutral before attempting to publish it, or publish it somewhere that has less strict policies on promotional content. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse. Obvious G11. Promotional language ("While in Sweden, she discovered her gifts and real purpose, to use her gifts to help people"), crap sources (facebook, instagram, youtube), etc. I can't help but be amused by the sentence, Fiona still covets the gifts she has to reach people one on one . The author should look up the definition of covet. It doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. Probably should be salted, since there's virtually no chance any rewrite could make this worth having. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)