Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2010 February 4
2010 February 6 >

5 February 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Frank Stilwell (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This AfD went for roughly 6 days and 8 hours with extensive arguments made by very established editors. On the seventh day of the AfD, it was a unanimous "keep". However, the nominator, User:Niteshift36, withdrew the nomination at this late time. This closure would make sense if the closer/nom felt they erred in their nomination, but instead this appears to be a WP:POINT closure with the closer/nom simply not agreeing with the outcome and withdrawing it just before an administrator could close it, likely as a "Keep."

An attempt to get a good faith explanation from the closer/nom ended with the nom feeling they didn't have to give an explanation. [1] (I wasn't "even involved" was apparently the reason.)

This AfD should either be allowed to finish out the final 16 hours or closed with the designation Keep, but preferably the latter as any other close is unlikely.--Oakshade (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Doesn't withdrawn by nominator, when there are no delete opinions, mean the same as keep? I don't see what the issue is here. Surely it's better for a nominator to withdraw when he or she realises that the consensus is in favour of keeping rather than to prolong the discussion? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It won't go on record as the community deciding on Keep, as what appears the case is here. I think the nom didn't want some kind of precedent being set. It's hard to say since they refuse to discuss it. Clearly the nom doesn't feel it should be kept, they just withdrew the nomination. --Oakshade (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This shouldn't even be here. What is being contested? That the article was kept? Oakshade, who had no involvement in the AfD whatsoever, simply refuses to AGF with me on anything. He made remarks questioning my motives for nominating another article that he supported keeping. That article was deleted yesterday. Then all of the sudden, he becomes interested in the closure of this one, when he showed no interest in it for the past 6 days. If there is anything WP:POINTY here, I'd submit that it is his actions. And yes, he did ask my reasoning and yes, I did decline to answer him. I acted within the rules. The article was kept. So what is being reviewed here? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per Phil. Accurate close that reflected that the nominator no longer supported deletion. A "keep" close would not have been unanimous, as the nominator would be the sole "delete" vote. However, a close with "nomination withdrawn" indicates that all editors believe that the article should be retained. There was no need to take this debate to DRV. Cunard (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, okay. If the withdrawing nominator simply doesn't like how an AfD is going instead of honestly believing the article should be kept after community say at almost 7 days is okay with Wikipedia, then I'll respect consensus. Don't agree with it, but I'll respect it. --Oakshade (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that sounds real respectful. You essentially withdraw your DRV by insulting me and again, questioning my motives. But this time you don't bother to pretend that it's a thought. You state it as a fact. If you bothered to read, I stated above why I withdrew it. Too bad your dislike of me clouds your vision. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • After repeatedly accusing me of acting in bad faith, you want to talk about WP:CIVIL? Perhaps you should start respecting our policy on that and WP:AGF as well. Yes, I did withdraw that other nomination. I still disagree. But it was clear that my interpretation was the minority and I respected the consensus view, even though it differed from my own. A nominator can withdraw a nomination at any time. Show me a policy the prohibits it. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- What exactly are you trying to achieve here, Oakshade? Quibbling over sixteen hours in an uncontroversial AfD. You say Niteshift36 should not have withdrawn the nomination because, though consensus was clear, he didn't agree with it. No. No, we have to reopen the debate and drag Niteshift publicly over the coals, rubbing it in to the max, because it's super duper mega important that the close says "The consensus was keep" rather than "withdrawn by nom". Do you have any idea how petty and vindictive this behaviour looks? Reyk YO! 02:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely not. Consensus was Keep and I think it's important that AfDs that run their full course should go on record as what community consensus decided. And vindictive? I wasn't even in the debate. You don't need to get testy about it. --Oakshade (talk) 02:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, you weren't in the debate. It's just a big coincidence that the day after an AfD I nominated and you fought hard to keep (and made bad faith allegations in) closed as a delete, you just happened across this and decided to make some more allegations and make an issue over....what is it that was actually wrong? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for following WP:AGF. For the record, I had to check my history to find the AfD you were talking about and a majority of the times I've debated (or "fought hard") with you in AfDs, they've ended with my preference. --Oakshade (talk) 03:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? There were only 14 edits between your last comments on the AfD about the Alrosa (which closed yesterday) and you taking up this cause. But you had to go back to find it? And now you're keeping score? No, that doesn't make it sound the least bit like you have an axe to grind. You're welcome about AGF, especially since you've totally abandoned is on your end. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes really. I wasn't even aware that debate closed. I lost interest in that debate 5 days ago (I guess you didn't notice that's when my last comment there was). It's clear you won't assume good faith and it's pointless to continue this. --Oakshade (talk) 03:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My friend, this entire discussion is because you wouldn't AGF in the first place. You opened it with allegations of bad faith conduct and stuck with it, even after I specifically said why I withdrew the nom. Please don't play the victim and don't insult everyone here by pretending that you've been following AGF all along. And yes, I noticed your absence for the 4 days between your last comment and your crusade here. Just find it an odd coincidence that this happened the day after the other closing. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Had you not just days before made allegations of bad faith on my part and had actually been involved in this AfD, I probably would have. But to be blunt, since you weren't involved and had been antagonistic towards me within the past few days, I didn't feel the need to explain myself to you, especially when my actions were completely within policies. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That actually does seem more appropriate and I'll make that specification next time I see a "withdrawn nomination" closure, but as consensus is going with "endorse closure", I'll still go with that. --Oakshade (talk) 06:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Alec Powers (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was recreated 7 months after the previous deletion being far better sourced than the orginal and in the opinion of the previously deleting admin "Looks fine to me; notability seems to be fairly clear now. The article that was deleted was pretty bad and didn't show any of the awards or coverage your new version does; so it doesn't surprise me it did get deleted - perhaps nobody with knowledge of the subject matter happened to notice the AfD. Nice work, anyway." (see diff). Though nobody else requested it, User:Viridae has chosen to speedy delete on the basis that the article was recreated and in his/her opinion must be deleted as it may fail WP:PORNBIO (see diff). This was the meat of the discussion that s/he has halted early, that the guidance of WP:PORNBIO is not an excuse to blindly delete, does not override the general notability criteria and this biographic article happens to pass WP:ENT and WP:ARTIST criteria. This is sufficient grounds for discussion in order to reach a consensus on the matter and that discussion has been halted less than half a day after the AfD was raised. I believe the article should be restored to enable a suitable consensus to be reached. It should be noted that similar articles for pornographic actors have been retained after consensus building discussion.

The deletion discussion that terminated early is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alec Powers (2nd nomination). Ash (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Note that as Viridae (talk · contribs) refused to userfy a copy of the article and, so far, has failed to email me a copy, the above DRV was based on my recollection of the article as I am unable to check the original version. Ash (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I emailed you a copy within 10 minutes of saying I would. Check your email again.ViridaeTalk 23:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll take your word for it, never arrived and not in my spam filter. Surprising it disappeared as I have had 3 other emails sent to me via Wikipedia in the last two weeks and I've just sent a test message which got redirected back to my main email account without incident. Ash (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, and at least list for the full period at AfD. I was the closer of the first AfD, and the admin that had a quick look at his recreated version. While the length of prose in the first and second versions was similar, the level of sourcing was completely incomparable: the original version was deleted quite rightly as a wholly unsourced BLP, while I felt the recreated version had ample sourcing and demonstrated notability fairly well despite being a very short stub with a list of appearances. Not being in any way interested in gay porn I can't really evaluate the sources all that well, but articles and features in various printed magazines were listed. Personally, I'm of the opinion that the individual easily satisfies the general notability guideline through coverage in reliable sources - and I don't think closing the AfD early was appropriate. There's a valid argument to be made here between WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG, and the listed article was enormously better-sourced than the previous version, making for a fairly dubious G4 deletion in my view. ~ mazca talk 18:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep deleted of course. Before deleting it I compared the two side by side. The main reason given by voters in the original deletion discussion was lack of notability, specifically it fails the notability criteria for pornstars (which as I explained to Ash on my talk page is more stringent than the general notability guideline fir other entertainers because a pornstar can pump out almost a film a week if they can find the work, and the adience size for porn movies is far far smaller than the audience for mainstream movies. These different notability criteria are listed at WP:PORNBIO. Now the new article, when compared side by side was essentially the same beast as the old. The old one was a 2 line opener stating he is a pornstar, the same for the new one. The old one had a list of selected titles in which he appeared, as did the new ( thigh the new had more listed). So while not word for word the same, in essence these articles were identical. Certainly, the failure if the notability criteria, the reason for the first deletion, was not changed, because the content was basically the same ( albeit better referenced). Now ash has elsewhere referenced awards. None of those were awarded to the performer, and awards were not mentioned in the body of the article (if they had been it wouldnt have qualified for the speedy). The awards websites in a couple of cases were used as references to establish the fact that he appeared in certain films at certain times. Summing up, I deleted this under CSD G4 because it had substantially the same content as the original and no effort had been made to address the failure of the notability guideline for pornstars as in the first afd. ViridaeTalk 20:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find the argument that there were details of awards won in the AfD discussion (this is the "elsewhere" that Viridae references) and if Viridae had seen these in the article rather than the discussion s/he would not have deleted a puzzling argument. I would have thought it a basic responsibility of anyone speedily closing an AfD to actually read the discussion to come to a conclusion, and if there is a prospect of reliable sources being added to the article in the near future then that is an obvious reason to not speedy delete. Have I misunderstood the process here? Ash (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist at AfD per the fact that the closing admin of the previous AfD believes that the subject now passes WP:GNG and that a good argument can be made for keeping this article. Sources were added to a previously unreferenced (or badly referenced) article so WP:CSD#G4 does not apply. Cunard (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist to AfD - This wasn't just a cun'n paste of the original version as there was valid sourcing in the new one. There are valid arguments for keeping.--Oakshade (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist for the full 7 days- I'm assuming good faith that sources were in fact added to the article. With this in mind, the creator made a good faith effort to fix the problems with the previous version, and the article should have been allowed to stand or fall on its own merits, not be deleted by G4. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist - I doubt it will make any difference to the outcome, but there's no harm in letting the AfD run its full course. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist for full 7 days. The version deleted at the first AfD was an unsourced BLP. The version speedy deleted recently was fully sourced. Whether the sources are reliable and whether they confer notability is for the community to decide. WP:CSD#G4 was not applicable here. Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist for full AfD period. I haven't seen the article prior to deletion, but it seems the notability issue is more in question than a simple "recreation of deleted material" speedy would cover. The deleting admin himself said above that the article was "basically the same (albeit better referenced)", but seems to not realize that being better referenced is exactly why it might not be "the same", and why the notability issue needs to be discussed at AfD. Equazcion (talk) 12:24, 7 Feb 2010 (UTC)
  • Note I have userfied the history of the article and its talkpage to User:Ash/Alec Powers (talk). This is the version deleted at AfD; this is the version speedily deleted.  Skomorokh  12:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. CSD G4 justified when the awards listing did not address the notability issue that caused the previous article to be deleted. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not for the admin to decide unilaterally whether the new changes/references properly addressed notability. G4 is only for a more-or-less straight recreation of the same material, where the article issues couldn't have been addressed because the article is still identical to the deleted version. If an attempt was made to address notability this time around, and the article changed significantly, it needs an AFD. Equazcion (talk) 17:33, 9 Feb 2010 (UTC)
There the content was almost exactly the same. References reference, they never add notability. ViridaeTalk 20:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If references reference sources that weren't referenced before then they can add proof of notability. Whether or not they did is a question for AfD. Equazcion (talk) 20:51, 9 Feb 2010 (UTC)
Proof og notability wasn't the reason it was deleted. Lack of it was, and references do not add notability. ViridaeTalk 23:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you keep saying that, but of course they do, in a sense, and insofar as they technically don't exactly add notability is a pedantic nitpicky argument that's not really helpful here. We deduce whether or not something is notable based on whether its references prove notability. That's what we mean by "notability", generally -- has notability been proven thus far through references? So basically, yes references can add notability, in the vernacular we generally use here, or establish it, if that word makes you more comfortable. If you're saying the subject isn't notable because you've decided such proof can not exist, either because you haven't found it yet or the present references don't qualify, or whatever, then that's a valid opinion but still not one on which you can base a speedy. Equazcion (talk) 23:20, 9 Feb 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say either of those things. There is no technically about it, references can be used to support claims of notability, but are not a claim of notability in and of themselves. The content of the article is the source of your notability claims, and that content is unchanged. Rewritten, yes. But it is still the same information presented in a slightly different format. The notability issues from the original afd therefore cannot and have not been addressed because no "content" has been added. ViridaeTalk 23:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Content in itself doesn't establish notability. References do. If you add a reference to an existing statement that comes from a reliable third-party source, that can establish notability for an article. Just because no content was added to the article body doesn't mean notability wasn't established. Equazcion (talk) 23:58, 9 Feb 2010 (UTC)
On that I call bullshit. References back up claims to notability, of which there were none in either version. ViridaeTalk 00:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think WP:N mentions anything about content requirements, only reference requirements. I'm not sure which encyclopedia you've been editing, but I've never heard of your camp before. Equazcion (talk) 00:04, 10 Feb 2010 (UTC)
Also: I think you might be confused about "claims of notability". The claim is the article's existence. That in and of itself is a claim to notability, and the proof is in the references. No explicit claim has to exist in the article body. Equazcion (talk) 00:27, 10 Feb 2010 (UTC)
Don't be ridiculous, by that logic nothing would ever be deleted under CSD A7, because article existence implies notability. ViridaeTalk 01:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I said. Article existence implies a claim to notability, not proof of notability. Again, where in WP:N does it say anything about an explicit claim to notability being required within the article's content? PS I know you must be pissed off because everyone thinks you made the wrong decision, and all, but try not to take it out on me with the whole "ridiculous" and "bullshit" stuff. It's getting on my nerves. Equazcion (talk) 02:18, 10 Feb 2010 (UTC)
Actually that is exactly what you said, as A7 only requires a claim to notability, not proof. Furthermore you are going off on a tangent. I said the article hadn't changed because the content was the same, just written differently. The first afd, which deleted it on notability grounds, therefore should be respected which is why I deleted it under that speedy deletion criteria. The article content didn't change, because a reference xcan only support a claim of notability, not in and of itself provide it. If that were the case, an article could consist entirely of external links. Clearly not the case. ViridaeTalk 05:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"a reference xcan only support a claim of notability, not in and of itself provide it. If that were the case, an article could consist entirely of external links." Not a logical conclusion, since notability isn't the only requirement in order for an article to exist. Still, if there were reliable third-party sources showing notability, and an article did consist only of those, the potential for an article would be apparent and someone would write something soon enough, if given the chance without someone speedy-deleting it. Regarding A7, it's is "a lower standard than notability" (exact words of CSD), not notability in itself. Notability trumps it, and is about references. In other words, if you read the A7 criteria carefully, it basically says that an article can be speedy-deleted if it's in such bad shape that not only doesn't it have references that prove notability, but it doesn't even say anything in the text that would show the subject is significantly important. If notability is present through references, A7 no longer applies, by default, since it is an even lower standard. Equazcion (talk) 13:39, 10 Feb 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. The changes made since the last deletion didn't go anyway to addressing WP:PORNBIO or WP:GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:PORNBIO: "1. Has won a well-known award, such as those listed in Category:Pornographic film awards or Category:Film awards." The actor appears to have won a Gay Erotic Video Awards, two GayVN Award, and an AVN award, which are all in Category:Pornographic film awards. That would seem to satisfy WP:PORNBIO. Equazcion (talk) 23:47, 9 Feb 2010 (UTC)
      • He hasn't won anything, as I stated earlier. Those awards were for films in which he was an actor. ViridaeTalk 23:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • One was for "best erotic scene", according to the reference. I'm not sure if that could be interpreted as the actor winning the award, or if that still goes to the director/film? I'm not really knowledgeable enough in this field to make that call. If there was an awards ceremony, I wonder who received actual statuettes, and whether there's a place to look that up online. Anyway I think these are questions for AFD rather than DRV. Equazcion (talk) 02:57, 10 Feb 2010 (UTC)
          • To clarify, none of the sources available specifically names him as recipient, several awards were for the film in which he was a lead and his acting would have helped win the award. Yes, this is a discussion for the AfD, not a DRV, especially in order to discuss the applicability of PORNBIO when in common-sense terms his body of work (being composed of multiple performances in demonstrably notable films) is impressive enough to be notable. Ash (talk) 07:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep deleted per viridae.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_February_5&oldid=1138436885"