On the above AfD, four of the "keeps" where based on the fact that it was a featured list. Of the remaining "keeps", none addressed the content fork point. Then Struway pointed out that the FL-criteria at the time of nomination did not entail the criteria about content forking. The day after a non-admin closed it as keep. I would like some input from non-stakeholders whether this article is a content fork or not, and if not then why. The whole list in it is a subset of a larger list, there is no difference between the information/sortability etc. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 21:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. That the closer accurately read the express, virtually unanimous, consensus can't be denied. The nom is asking for more input on a substantive issue, which is simply a second round of the AFD. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the DRV does not concern itelf with the substance of the above matter, please withdraw this. I do not question the close. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 23:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the DRV tries to avoid substantive issues, but often does consider them, because correct WP deletion process requires the deletions to be in accord with WP policies and guidelines, to take account of the arguments submitted and the consensus, and to use good judgment. In the present instance ,nobody supported your argument, so I do not see how it could have been closed otherwise. The obvious thing to do in a case like this, where there is the possibility that broader attention would have given a different result, is to wait a while, and try again. Normally I suggest waiting at least 6 months or so when the first AfD is as clear as this one. When you do nominate it again, it is highly recommended you notify the people who contributed to the first AfD. DGG ( talk )
Comment from closer. Barring a "supervote", I don't see any other possible way this AFD could have been closed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant endorse. There really is no other way it could have been closed, but it doesn't seem like the most useful of content forks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – Absolutely no other way to close that AFD; doing so would surely cause the community to exclaim "admin/IAR abuse". –MuZemike 22:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy endorse, could not possibly have ben closed any other way. DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 12:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
I have attempted to answer the deleting editors questions but he chooses only to answer certain ones. In addition he has stated that the only IMDB credits acceptable are those verified by the WGA (I am an actor not a writer) and the MPAA who only rate films not verify content. A review of the request page will show the attempts taken to try and satisfy the requirement for links to external sources. I would be grateful if the conversation and examples to external links could be examined please. Nicktw (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No undeletion - Sorry, the request for undeletion is filled with unreliable sources and others that simply list the name. Read all the criteria of the general notability guideline and WP:ACTOR; minor billing and uncredited roles do not meet the threshold for a wikipedia article. I'd also note the rather obvious self-promotion going on here. Tarc (talk) 03:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't actually discussed this with the deleting admin, you placed a request at Wikipedia:REFUND#Deletion_review_for_Nick_Thomas-Webster where an independant editor responded, not the deleting admin. There are various aspects which need to be covered in order to be suitable for an article on wikipedia and these are covered by various policies.
Firstly all material needs to be WP:V verifiable to reliable sources and primarily secondary sources. Many of the sources you listed don't meet the standard of WP:RS, i.e. as discussed IMDB is largely user submitted content the level of verification done is quite indeterminate. One of the extras you listed is a blog, anybody can setup a blog, i.e. I could setup a blog and start saying "the performance by Nick Thomas-Webster was possibly the worst I've seen...", do you think we should reference that? What qualifies my opinion? For biographical content on you the situation is even worse, on the blog I setup how do you know what fact checking I do to make sure it's accurate (assuming I do any of course). Should wikipedia republish my unchecked opinion and facts?
It also needs to meet the inclusion standard, that of notability, generally speaking the standard is that the world at large should be sufficiently interested in you that they are willing to write about you (which dovetails with the verifiability policy). The general notability guideline specifies non-trivial coverage in multiple independant reliable sources. You have problems here as well the sources you've listed are either not independant, not reliable, or trivial (cast listings, bare filmography listings etc. are trivial they say nothing about you). There is also WP:ENTERTAINER as a guide, this is secondary to the guide mentioned above but lists the qualities in entertainment professions which are normally a sign they will meet the notability standard. The article didn't meet those either.
There are many other policies and guidelines for articles, but those are they key ones which you'd need to meet for the article to exist.
Finally wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a brag sheet, as such it is strongly discouraged to write about yourself, see the conflict of interest guidelines. It's usually best to wait for someone else to write about you, which if you are signficant in what you are doing generally won't take long. The other thing to remember is do you really want an article about you? Remembering any article will be written from a neutral point of view, so if indepedant reviewers concur your performances are poor, that will likely appear in the article etc. There are various people who have found that having an article is actually rather annoying. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 09:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Clearly promotional: Praise for his first role as an MP and a member of William Wilberforce Clapham Sect Michael Apted Amazing Grace (2006 film) by Phoenix Movie reviews http://phoenixmoviereviews.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default has inspired Nick to seek new challenges.
The article also lacks substantial coverage in reliable sources, so should not be undeleted because it fails Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cunard (talk) 08:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
