Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 June 11

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Jackass "Ricky" hates on Perdue probably because USC ball just got fucked in the ass by the NCAA. How can you be against their official website as a credible source? What's not credible about quoting Mark Titus for what Mark said? And what's wrong with USA today? 3, count them, 3 reliable sources and it got gone. The Paint Crew is mentioned at all the broadcasts. Folks just got to listen to Purdue ball and learn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.175.20.202 (talk • contribs) 06:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are reminded not to make personal attacks against other editors, or you will be restricted from editing; I strongly urge you to refactor your above comment ASAP. That being said, I see nothing wrong with the discussion one bit; nobody else has bothered to make any other comments apart from merging or deletion, so I endorse the decision. –MuZemike 07:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well fuck you too if you have no respect. Why the fukc should the Nittany Nation the Izzone and the grateful red be here but not the paint crew? What's not reliable about the crew? Why do four anti-Perdue haters decide what happens?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.175.40.234 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I'll play your game. What's wrong with citing the official website and two newspaper articles? That's 3 sources.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.175.40.234 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources in a Wikipedia context should be independent of the subject. I would point out that the AFD was closed as merge, so that the topic will still be covered in Wikipedia, just under Purdue Boilermakers men's basketball rather than in its own article. Stifle (talk) 12:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For context for observers, between the 07:59 and 08:06 comments I closed the DRV due to the nominator being unable to conduct debate in a civil manner. I do not intend to reclose it right now; another admin might. Stifle (talk) 12:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stifle was right to close it. Someone close it again. The nominator can come back when he's sober.—S Marshall T/C 13:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Stephanie Johnson – Withdrawn – Shimeru 20:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I closed the discussion as merge about two weeks ago primarily based on sourcing concerns. Earlier today, the merge was undone on the strength of an added reference. I reverted to a redirect since the reference is to NBC.com, and therefore (in my opinion) a primary source, not indicating notability. One of the other editors involved has asked me to open a discussion here, so I am doing so. Is this sufficient to overturn the AfD and un-merge? For the sake of convenience, this diff shows all changes made to the article between the AfD close and just prior to my redirect. This is a procedural nomination; obviously I endorse my own close, but I am not opposed to recreation of the stand-alone article if consensus is that there are now sufficient secondary sources. Shimeru 01:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Stephanie Johnson is the daughter of one of the most famous super couples in the history of Days of our Lives, Kayla Brady, and Steve Johnson. The character was first introduced in 1990 so there shouldn't be a notability issue here. If references are the problem some can certaintly be added. The Horton and Brady families are the main families in the show. Stephanie is a direct line in the Brady family. I can go add some refs myself. The point is it should be restored. And the ref that User:Gabi Hernandez added wasn't a primary source. It was a daily recap about all characters from the NBC site, which is considered a secondary source. The character is also in many of my Soap Opera reference books. Sami50421 (talk) 01:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added more references to make the article more notable. It should be able to act as a stand alone article now. Sami50421 (talk) 06:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that the current consensus is that DRV doesn't overturn a "merge" to a "keep" or vice versa, because there's no use of administrative tools to review, and the matter can be resolved just as well via the normal talk-page discussion and WP:BRD. Has that changed?—S Marshall T/C 14:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Kinda, yes. We agreed that the decision to close as merge could be reviewed but since this is new information it looks more like an editing decision so personally I'd prefer to see this discussion taking place at the article talk page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Spartaz says. We will review it if here is some reason to, but it is rarely necessary, because consensus can usually be reached on the talk page. DGG ( talk ) 15:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some reason why a DRV is necessary here, then?—S Marshall T/C 15:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Broader input. The involvement at the article page and subsequently talk pages was two editors in favor of reinstating the article, one opposed, and the AfD close was cited. That's not going to create a consensus. Apologies if another area would have been more suitable for this, but DRV seemed like the most obvious place to reconsider an AfD result. Shimeru 20:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a redirect - There's nothing to be seen but primary sources and bios of the actresses that played the character. No real-world context or notability to be had. Tarc (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check again. There is a number of sources from outside the soap opera realm. The character has notability, and it can be proved if allowed to do so. Gabriela Hernandez 19:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabi Hernandez (talk • contribs)

Give back her own page! Stephanie has a been major character on the show for the past three years so can you please do it? --Razzfan (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't see why we shouldn't provide the broader input Shimeru asks for. It's true that the AfD close was appropriate and in accordance with the consensus. I also haven't found any evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. But on the other hand, I don't see why having a separate article for this TV show character would be such a terrible disaster for the encyclopaedia, and if good faith editors wish it—as they apparently do—then I don't see why we should stand in their way. I think that while there are still serious issues to clear up, it's not a good use of our time to try to be the notability police over such a harmless piece of content.—S Marshall T/C 21:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the authors in question has provided evidence of reliable secondary sources to be added to the article. As such, this DRV is now irrelevant, and I'm closing it as withdrawn. Thank you for your time. Shimeru 20:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.