- A-fu Teng (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The page was listed for deletion on April 2nd, and deleted on April 11th or so, after 2-3 votes for delete questioning the lack of sources and the reliability of sources. It was relisted on April 12th and the creator of the page (which is me) have added 3 credible and properly cited sources in the Chinese language which clearly showed that the person met criteria #1, #2 and #4 on WP:Music. Since it was relisted, there has only been one vote on the discussion, which was for keeping the article, with the reason being that sources have been found and provided, and notability has been noted. However, on April 28th it was deleted by another admin on the grounds "Fails WP:MUSIC and general notability. Consensus is to delete", neither accurate statement. I have since inquired about the article on that admin's talk page, calling out the lack of research on his part, but he diverted the issue and refused to correct it. For this reason I ask that the deletion be looked into and overturned. Timmyshin (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse my deletion I reviewed a number of translated sources that were either not reliable, or they did help all that much in generating real notability - some included press releases and local concert dates. None of these met the requirements under WP:MUSIC. What I did find is that they could be "the next big thing", but aren't yet. As such, the reasoning is valid (this was, of course, explained already) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm no Chinese speaker, but the last two sources appear to be published by reliable news outlets and both have a byline. The coverage in both cases is short, but not so short as to not count (and are solely focused on the band). That they aren't yet the next big thing isn't an issue. Just coverage. I'd like to wait for others who are fluent to comment, but I'm leaning toward overturning to either a relist or NC. Hobit (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I took a look. The problem with these "sources" is that most are quite trivial. The title of this source, given in the debate, for instance, translates to something like "Teng Fu-ru wants to eat buttered pineapple bun". Hardly something you want to cite in an encyclopedia article. This source has two paragraphs. First paragraph is basically a hearsay statement from some radio host that the President of ROC bought Teng's album. The second paragraph is actually about Teng: less than a month since her debut, she has had concerts in more than twenty schools, did five album signing events and netted 7000 fans (apparently by counting attendants at the concerts and signings). Of the three sources cited in the article, I'm not familiar with the publisher of this one (it's from Malaysia), so I can't say definitively if it's an RS or not, but it's a fairly new magazine, and the website doesn't really strike me as reliable. The whole article is basically in the form of "About X, Teng said '...'", so I'm not sure you can call it third-party either. This piece is basically about one of her appearances on a TV show. This one is basically a slightly more elaborate version about her school concerts and signing events. Overall I'd say most of the coverage are trivial, and these sources are simply not the sort of things from which a BLP can be written. Endorse. T. Canens (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- relist Here's my take on the discussion. We started with "there are no sources". Then someone added sources and someone else (who is known to have a clue) found those sources sufficient. The closer deleted based on their own reading of the sources (it was a reading not even vaguely present in the AfD). What the closer should have done is !voted and let someone else close. Further, while Google translate is no substitute for actually language skills (I had thought this was a band article, not a BLP for example), the sources seem reliable and perhaps up to WP:N. So I'd really like to hear from others fluent in the subject and language. Hobit (talk) 10:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Very weak endorse or relist. I've been holding back on this because I have a lot of respect for Bwilkins and I respect T Canen's analysis of the sources but I have to agree with Hobit. Bwilkins should have !voted in this AFD not closed it. By analysing the sources and forming his own opinion about their reliability and the depth of coverage he became an "interested party" ie no longer "neutral". I can't fault him too much for that though because I have made the same mistake a few times myself. The big trout however, has to go to the article's creator who for some reason chose not to participate in the AFD but instead yell at both of the admins who closed it. I particularly didn't like the more qualified admin cheap shot he made to Sandstein's talk page and I have to credit Sandstein for restarting the AFD despite it. Timmyshin, Sandstein wasn't lazy. "Google searching" is something that those who !vote in the AFD are suppose to do and a million google hits don't mean shack jit. Among those million google hits there has to be reliable sources. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to relist, considering the course of the discussion and the (small) number of the votes, I don't think this specific discussion needed a "supervote" in response to the Sandstein's relist and to the last keep vote... more properly it required an analysis of the sources provided by Timmyshin. I've not a strong opinion about the notability of the subject (even if I'm tendentially for keep), but anyway I would have considered more appropriate an extension of the debate and that BWilkins shared his objections in it. And if it had to be closed so early, probably a no consensus would be a more appropriate outcome. Cavarrone (talk) 12:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a BLP where I understand the sources to be inadequate, so I'm not comfortable with undeleting it.—S Marshall T/C 17:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I already did undelete, right at the start. The possibility of inaccuracy is whether the claims for importance are too strong, rather than that the material might be negative. This is a very innocuous situation. We can hardly have a relisted discussion without an article to discuss. DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, I was unclear. I was trying to express a complex thought succinctly and I failed. I wasn't being accusing towards you for the temp-undelete. What I was trying to do was oppose an "overturn" outcome without using the word "endorse". I don't feel that that debate really did lead to a consensus to delete, but I also don't want a marginally-sourced BLP to be restored.—S Marshall T/C 23:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per T. Canens. Many indirect mentions of the subject do not support a BLP. There may be a non-biographical article that could be written. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's probably going to end up being the way forward. If this were a band, I think we'd be above the bar. I'd argue that, per our guidelines, a single person act is no different than a band. But, I realize that's probably not going to actually work in this case. So is there a model for working with single performers as an "act" but not a BLP? Hobit (talk) 02:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Given "Her first album, Yuan Lai Ru Ci (原來如此) sold over 24,000 copies in less than a month.[2] It sat atop the KKBOX sales charts for three weeks, breaking the record of debut albums in Taiwan.[3]", I think an article on this album is most likely. There are two album articles at zh.wikipedia.org These might be translated. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - Closed based on consensus. To overcome, write a draft in userspace using enough reliable source material to maintain a stand alone article. So that this discussion has context after access to the article is terminated, A-fu Teng's website is here. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse The close was within administrative discretion and as SM mentions, there are potential BLP issues with the poor sources. MBisanz talk 22:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The only !vote that came after the sources were added felt the sources were enough. Could you explain how deleting in that situation is within administrative discretion and isn't a supervote? Hobit (talk) 00:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Presumably they would have returned to alter their comment given how many times it was relisted or they would have commented here. Letting the closing admin say "there are enough sources now so their comment is invalid" would have been a supervote. MBisanz talk 02:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Would you mind my asking them to come here and indicate if your (rather bold) assumption about their behavior is correct? One !vote indicated that non-English sources were likely to exist and another !voted solely on the basis that the article was unsourced. Hobit (talk) 13:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In all honestly I'm _really_ concerned a bureaucrat would have this opinion on the reading of consensus. In general at an AfD if people !vote one way and things change and that !vote no longer applies that !vote is largely ignored. There was only _one_ !vote after the relist and improvement and that was a !vote to keep. Given that at least one, and maybe both of the deletion rationals no longer applied, I don't see how you can claim consensus for deletion. A BLP exception maybe (and that's a massive stretch IMO) but that's a very non-standard way to read consensus. Hobit (talk) 13:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I may be getting the context wrong, but assuming the allusion to bureaucrat relates to RFA, I believe it is fairly well established that earlier comments at an RFA continue to be valid, even if new material is brought forward in subsequent comments by other users. There is no "supervote" there either that would let a crat say "Oh they would have changed their minds if they came back and saw the new stuff so I get to discount their vote based on my view of the new material." It's up to the earlier users to come back and say "In light of the new evidence, I've changed my mind." MBisanz talk 13:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, nowhere in Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators or Wikipedia:Bureaucrats mention discounting of comments based on the passage of time in a short process like AFD or RFA. Over months-long RFCs, maybe I could see the justification, but not here. Zippy specifically said they would reconsider if the sources were brought forward and did not change their comment, which would indicate they did not see a need to change their view based on the new alleged sourcing. MBisanz talk 14:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for the record this is what I would have done. If I didn't vet the new sources I would have closed it no consensus based on Joe Decker's comments. If I did vet the sources I would have !voted (not closed) "keep" or "delete" based on my evaluation of the new sources. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
