Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 December 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2011 December 18
2011 December 20 >

19 December 2011[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Austin Mahone (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

This is a significant singer with +300K Twitter followers, 300K subscribers on his YouTube channel and 47MM video views, and sold out concerts in New York. If previous attempts to create an article were not successful, I am willing to scour media sources to find notable sources for this article. I am sorry if this posting is not formatted correctly - It is *very difficult* to post requests like this, why is the process so arcane? Keizers (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: the version I deleted consisted of, in its entirety, "Austin Carter Mahone was born April 4, 1996 in San Antonio, Texas. He started putting videos of him singing on youtube where he started gaining fans." None of the previously deleted versions (there are five of them) are any better. If the subject is now notable, I'd suggest creating a draft in a sandbox in your userspace, where you can gather references documenting the subject's notability. Acroterion (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion w/o prejudice to creation of a suitable article: This article has been deleted five times, probably each time due to lack of sources cited to show notability. Mahone is not the first to run into the problem of being very popular among the younger teen crowd, and thus getting less press coverage at first then, say, some indie band from brooklyn. A quick search found these sources [1] [2] [3] which suggests he could have an article. The prior close as delete was OK, but its possible that an article could be created on this guy.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have created a new article at Austin Mahone (singer). I would appreciate someone moving it to Austin Mahone, as I can't seem to do that. This new article can be subjected to AfD if necessary, and the DrV can be closed since the prior deletes were proper.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the article to Austin Mahone per your request. Acroterion (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2011 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
M.E. Bell (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The article was recently created by me, temporarily unaware that there was a Mifflin E. Bell article which M.E. Bell refers to. There are in fact a good number of references on the internet to "M.E. Bell" and valid-to-use sources, including at least two I had already added to the article. It was speedy-delete tagged by editor SarekOfVulcan, who has been dogging my edits towards finding any fault to trumpet. It would clearly have been better just to put a note on the article's talk page. Then editor Elen of the Roads deleted it, and has not responded to my request. Elen of the Roads is aware of running contention by SarekOfVulcan against me, and should not have been furthering SarekOfVulcan running up some damn score of works of mine that he has disrupted. And on the facts the article should not have been speedy-deleted; it does not meet the criteria, including that a redirect at a minimum is needed, and that the article content was not entirely duplicated in the Mifflin article. I ask for the article to be restored so that I may proceed with an orderly merge of material. Please restore the article with its edit history.doncram 18:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion – Doncram created an article that duplicated an existing one instead of editing the current article. That's not how things work here. If there is an existing article, then users are supposed edit that one and, if necessary, work with the other editors on said article. Recreating an article from scratch and expecting that it be history-merged into an existing one is underhanded, uncollaborative, and indicative of article ownership.
Moreover, the current Mifflin E. Bell article has more information than the stub Doncram wants restored. It is also not as closely paraphrased from the sources as his version:
Doncram Source
...significant as the first Federal building built in Nevada, and the only one of its architectural style, which is Richardsonian Romanesque. ...significant to Nevada as the first Federal building to be constructed in the state and the only one of its particular style.
If his version is to be forced onto the Mifflin E. Bell article, it would be reverted, as it is clearly lacking on all counts. –MuZemike 18:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WTF. This is about the appropriateness of Speedy Deletion. That was inappropriate by the terms of Speedy Deletion guidelines. --doncram 18:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Edit the current article if you wish, no reason to make a new one, at most, redirect M.E. Bell to the current article. As for what and what not should be changed, it's a matter for the talk page of the article, not DRV. Snowolf How can I help? 18:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - lacking any indication that the ME Bell article was created in bad faith (and being ignorant of any history between Sarek and Doncram), and that "M.E. Bell" is a likely search term for the existing article I have restored the article history and created the redirect. This provides Doncram with any references that they might have lost with the deletion (tho I find that dubious) that can be used to improve the existing article, and gives us a current redirect. Any other issues regarding which content is verifiable and mergeable can be worked out on the talkpage. Syrthiss (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --doncram 18:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Putting my hands up here - should have created a redirect. More haste less speed. However....I wouldn't have done any kind of a merge - doncram's offering did not appear to have any information in it that was not in the article that already existed, and I share the concern about close paraphrasing expressed above. doncram, I recommend that in future you check the full name of an architect before you start an article on them, because the usual way to refer to an individual on Wikipedia is firstname/lastname.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks if that is an apology. This diff shows 2 wikilinks to articles for existing items, 6 additional items added, 2 photos added, a category, and other changes to the article, all from the M.E. Bell version i had drafted (not counting another photo that i also added anew). Far more than "any information". It is silly to chastise me for starting an article that turned out to be duplicative; that happens all the time and causes no problem, leading obviously to a merge when a duplication is established. The problem is only contention fostered by SarekOfVulcan here. You could as well chastise the editors of the other version for not identifying that this is the person commonly known as "M.E. Bell". --doncram 19:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*headdesk* --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WTF. That from Sarek who just exceeded 3RR at yet another article I was working on, trying to leave this one behind. Lay off with the contention. Good grief, get a life other than following me. --doncram 19:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually looked up sources instead of doing database dumps, we wouldn't have these issues now, would we? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. More careful editing from the original contributor would have prevented this problem from occurring in the first place. Asking for that to happen, though, is like asking Saint Anthony Falls to flow in reverse. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 19:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As someone who is usually more active on other wiki's I'm really amazed by this discussion. Why on earth was this article nominated for speedy deletion and not just redirected like on a normal Wikipedia? Wikipedia:Speedy deletion#A10 clearly doesn't apply so why are people endorsing this? multichill (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
yes, that would have been the obvious way to deal with it, since A10 should not be used when the title of the new duplicate article is a plausible redirect, as this one is. If someone made the name error once, someone will again, so such a creation is usually a clear sign a redirect is needed. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • undelete and redirect (basically endorse the action of Syrthiss) as this is not an A10 ("...and where the title is not a plausible redirect."), I don't think anyone disagrees. The question is if there should be a restore. In theory a pure redirect at this point would be fine (without the restore), but I've a really big fan of a tight speedy criteria and very much prefer to get things back to the state they would have been in had the speedy not been misapplied. Let's do things by the book unless there is a reason to do otherwise. Hobit (talk) 13:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this can be closed at this point as there is nothing to do. Hobit (talk) 13:41, 24 December 2011 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
Sierra McCormick (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

A second-billed star in a now-renewed Disney show that had not aired when the AfD was started, is now clearly notable. Ridiculous that the inline links in the A.N.T. Farm article are direct to IMDb. I edited a recreation of the article and then discussed moving it to the correct title with one of the four deleting admins (from the 10 times it's been recreated), but then another admin ignored our discussion and G4'd it. Like I mentioned on his page - maybe if we weren't so gung ho in deleting articles on items that young females are interested in, we might have a chance in addressing the gender bias gap that exists here. The-Pope (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse original close as delete, although I'm not beyond someone drafting a properly-sourced article that shows clear meeting of the relevant notability guidelines. However, this was deleted 6 months ago validly - a new article should be started from scratch. Pretty inappropriate to link "gender bias" to the non-existence of a validly-deleted article (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The AFD close is sound, though only due to the relative weakness of the keep arguments. That said, if someone wants to put together a draft article (with proper sourcing) that highlights the notable roles this subject has had, it might be worth revisiting this article. But the sheer number of times this article has been recreated (including by User:The-Pope) means that it will remain SALTed until a properly sourced draft article can be reviewed. Come back when you have a draft that shows notability. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me try to explain this a little bit better. I'm not here to challenge that original decision, - I'm here because I want admins to stop G4ing it, because things have changed. When the AFD was done, A.N.T. Farm hadn't even be aired. Now it's been renewed for a second season. It's a show on the Disney Channel. It's huge. For a child actor, this is equivalent to getting a top 10 single, playing in the premier league - this isn't a bit part, this isn't a pilot episode, this isn't a guest star role, it's a major role.
Did anyone actually read the most recently deleted version - which I did NOT create (can you please strike that from your statement, it is false), I only edited it, referenced it and requested that it be moved to the correct name. I only found the article on an Unreferenced BLP list as Sierra Nicole McCormick, referenced it, then found the AfDs on the actual name, discussed it with Wizardman, who then moved it to Sierra McCormick (he left a message on my talk page of "Went ahead and moved it. It's being recreated so frequently by obsessed fans that I'm tired of making sure it's G4'd, and the show at least makes her notability borderline so no reason to keep deleting it.") before Fastily did G4 it. When I queried why he did that Fastily told me to come here - "please do consider listing it at WP:DRV if the original AfD no longer applies so the page isn't deleted again". The guidelines here state "Deletion Review may also be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article." Now, the first part of that matches - and I think that the latest version (that was moved from Sierra Nicole to Sierra and deleted by Fastily at 09:06, 30 November 2011) is usable (and Wizardman agreed). If it is recreated, can a note be placed on it saying that things have changed so that no one else does a G4 on it? If this is the wrong place for a G4 overruling, then fine, tell me where else to, but as I've already talked to two admins about this, can't someone just do it? If you really want to be sure, send it straight back to AFD and see what the community thinks. All I know is that ANT Farm was barely mentioned in the first AFD, and it's her main claim to notability now. The-Pope (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that's precisely my point. The original deletion was fine, and that's part of what this DRV evaluates. OK. Now the subject's notability has changed, and that's fine too - so show me a draft article that properly documents that notability (with more than just a single source about the show and not the actress) and I'll happily endorse its move to Sierra McCormick. But first things first. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The updated, referenced stub was approved by an admin - Wizardman, but deleted by another, Fastily. I can't retrieve it, I don't have a mop. I am only at this page because Fastily told me to raise it here. Where else are you meant to go to complain about incorrect use of G4? The 2nd paragraph on the DRV page states Deletion review (DRV) considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions and speedy deletions Without ever seeing the original AFD'd version, I doubt the version deleted in November was "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" as per the WP:CSD#G4 rules. So, all of the discussion about the original AfD is invalid, wrong, offtopic and not why I'm here. I'm disputing a speedy. Glad I sorted that out. The-Pope (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right, this is where you question a G4 deletion. Unfortunately, the November version (both of them, 12 November and 28/29 November) were close enough to the AFD version to qualify for G4 deletion. They also did not provide sources that document the subject's notability - they mention the new show, and there was a link to the announcement of that new show, but there was nothing about the subject herself except for the inclusion of her name in a list of cast members of the new show. So, in order to recreate this article (and to prevent it from being deleted again), you would need to provide a draft version that includes sources that show the subject to be notable. I don't dispute that she is probably notable, but - given the sheer number of times this article has been deleted - we need to document that notability using appropriate sources. Once that's done, I doubt anyone would argue that G4 applies. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • and who makes the call on the claimed notability of the draft version? Wizardman? Fastily? You? This board? AFC? Random other admin? If eveyone agrees that this is the best/only option then userfy please. The-Pope (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this case, Fastily made that call - a call with which I and several others here agree. The most recently deleted version did not adequately document the subject's notability using reliable sources. I add that we might short-circuit the whole process by finding such sources now - if we can do that, then we could restore the article with proper sources and have done. It should be that simple, yes? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article seems to have been undeleted for this review - userfy away. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I guess this is the perfect example of the good and bad things about sources, notability and google. I am guessing that there are in depth articles about her, but they aren't online, they are in paper only copies of "Disney Weekly" (yes I know that it wouldn't be independent) or "Kids Stuff" magazines. Is 'justjaredjr . buzznet.com' a reliable source? (probably not, trigged the blacklist spamfilter!) WP:ENTERTAINER comes close - "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows." Now she definitely has had one notable role... not sure about the others. So she is a perfectly borderline notable person. Which I guess is why a) she's been re-created so many times, and b) whilst at least 3 or 4 of us think that she just scrapes through, but many others stick by the previous ruling. I know that she isn't going to be a GA article anytime soon, but as the result of this G4 stubbornness is "direct links to IMDB" (which I think is awful), or single redlinks in lists of blue linked actors I think that the line is blurred enough. The AFC page, Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Sierra_McCormick is also interesting - there is a definite "good faith" desire for this article to exist - I bet another AfD would come up with a lot of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments for similar child actors- but the suitable refs just aren't on google yet. The-Pope (talk) 14:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You sold me - if the consensus here is that she is notable, I have no further objection to recreating the article. But I can't promise to vote keep if it comes up for another AFD for lack of sources, so do keep working on that. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, yeah speaking on the young-female bias, I just dealt with Austin Mahone (singer) which is on DrV above. The original deletion here was incorrect because there was no consensus to delete, its very simple. But its been a few months, no need to prejudice a recreation if more sources now exist.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose the point here is that no additional sources have been found. Consensus in the original discussion was based on an assessment of concerns presented and addressed, using reasons and rationale based in policy, sources, and common sense. Accordingly, the article was deleted. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 10:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • There was no consensus in that discussion, saying there was does not change that.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and send to AfD The nom in this case did got an admin to agree that the article was okay. That should in general clear it from being a speedy target as speedies are for clear cases. So either Wizardman made a boneheaded call or it's not a clear case. Hobit (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wizardman did not allow restoration of the article based on established policies or guidelines. He indicates in edit summaries that he restored the article because he was tired of continued recreation of the article, essentially throwing his hands up in surrender. I am tired of the article being created when the initials issues have not yet been resolved, but there is a process to follow to ensure that as a community, we follow the established policies and guidelines. Bypassing the deletion policy was not an appropriate response with this article. The G4 is very clear that this article was previously deleted in accordance with the deletion policy and community consensus. And when recreated, it was clear that the article failed to address the issues that resulted in the original deletion. Note that I have personally looked for sources online and in printed newspapers, magazines, and journals to hopefully establish notability of this subject so that we don't have to continually be faced with numerous recreations of this article. I have come up empty; nothing in print and nothing online outside of a bunch of fansites. That said, if sources could be found, I would be more than happy to add them to the article. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 10:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn G4, AfD if desired. Diffs show that the most recently deleted article was not an unimproved copy of the deleted article, but contained substantial added content. Jclemens (talk) 08:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added content has failed to establish notability in accordance with the WP:GNG or WP:ENT. The issues that resulted in the original AFD continue to remain. Accordingly, the article was G4 deleted in compliance with the deletion policy. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 10:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close as delete. The AFD recommended deletion based on a lack of notability in accordance with WP:ENT or WP:GNG. These issues have not been resolved in any subsequent recreation. In my opinion, the restoration of the article by Wizardman was ill advised and contrary to the deletion policy. We don't keep or restore inappropriate articles simply because some editors continue to violate notability guidelines or create salted articles under another name. Or whether or not we are tired of addressing editors that continue to create and recreate inappropriate articles. Articles require notability. The notability of this subject has been previously presented for discussion, resulting in community consensus to delete. There is nothing new to establish that the subject meets either the topical or general notability guidelines. If significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources can be found, or the subject can be shown to meet the WP:ENT guidelines (verified through reliable and independent sources), I would wholeheartedly support retaining the article. However, this information has not been forthcoming. It has not been shown that the notability threshold has been met. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 09:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that she is extremely close to meeting WP:ENT guidelines, having one definitely notable role, the question is are any of the others, or is the combination of the other roles enough? The-Pope (talk) 14:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The WP:ENT guidelines require "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." The subject doesn't meet this criteria, nor is the subject's body of work reflected in accordance with the WP:GNG. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 10:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is exactly what I said. She has 1 definitely significant role. I haven't looked closely enough at her other roles to determine if anything else is significant. Any all of those words are subjective and change with time, so being so rigid with the decision made 6 months ago isn't helpful. The-Pope (talk) 14:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You asked if the combination of other roles are enough. In reply, I simply presented an answer as stated in the guidelines. The combination of minor roles is not enough to establish notability. The WP:ENT guidelines require significant roles in multiple productions. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 18:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • But she does meet that criteria. Just look at her resume. She has at least one significant role in a notable tv series and has at least one significant role in a notable movie. Two is enough to qualify for "multiple". For An Angel (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, there is nothing presented to confirm your opinion that the role in the film was a significant one. Can you provide any reliable, independent sources to support the claim? Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 18:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • She played one of the children in the family that the movie is about, that much is obvious enough just by looking at the cast list. She was more than an extra and had more than a cameo.[4] She also won a Family Television Award for her work on Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader?[5] For An Angel (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, she did not have a significant role in The Dog Who Saved Christmas, and she most certainly did not win an award for her work on the 5th Grader. This is a prime reason why we don't use IMDb to establish notability. The show was honored. McCormick was not a nominee or winner of any kind. Again, can you provide any reliable, independent sources to support your claims or assumptions? Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 12:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That depends on how you define "significant". She wasn't the only actor in the movie but she had more than a cameo. "she most certainly did not win an award for her work on the 5th Grader. This is a prime reason why we don't use IMDb to establish notability." As if IMDB was the only website that mentions this? How many more do you want? one, two, three, four? For An Angel (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Although this article has been deleted numerous times, it has gone through AfD only once and the only person who voted for delete in that discussion was the nominator. It was speedily deleted 5 or 6 times after that (requested by the same person every time) only because it was a "recreation of a previously deleted article". I think we should stop using that original AfD as a reason to keep deleting this article. The subject and article has grown a lot since it's first deletion. Just compare the two versions. At the very least, it doesn't make sense to "salt" this article because that assumes we know she will never become notable enough in the future. If she is still doesn't not meet notability requirements then just leave it as a redirect to A.N.T. Farm for now. For An Angel (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issues that were in the original version of the article which resulted in deletion, remain in the current version of the article. We don't open up more AFDs when the issues leading to deletion through community consensus have not been resolved. That would be a waste of time. The article continues to fail the threshold of notability in accordance with WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Salting an article simply protects continual recreations of an article that do not meet the criteria for inclusion. If someone wants to re-create a salted title, believing that the issues leading to the earlier deletion have been resolved, the appropriate response is to contact an administrator or use the deletion review process. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 10:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This might not mean much but she is currently ranked #6 on IMDB's "Most Popular People Born In 1997" and many of the actors less popular than her have articles here on Wikipedia. For An Angel (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think anyone is doubting her popularity, for some reason she fails the ghit test, which is what we probably all use as the first test for notability. She exists on the German wikipedia too. The-Pope (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that a lack of Google hits is not the reason for deletion. The issue is a lack of notability through established community guidelines. Note also that we are not restricted to merely using an online search engine. What we need is significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. None of the sources in the en.wiki or de.wiki meet the criteria for independence. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 10:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What non-google sources have you checked? It's a lovely circular argument... ghits aren't the reason for deletion, lack of significant coverage is, and for most people, this means a google web/news/books search and nothing else. I know the "trust me, I'm sure there are sources out there" argument is often misused, all I'm asking is that the 6 month old decision is allowed to be checked again.The-Pope (talk) 14:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Books, magazines, and journals. As far as reviewing the six-month-old decision? That's why we're here. I've personally searched again and came up empty. What did your search find? Anything significant? Reliable? Independent? If so, please share them with us. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 18:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close as delete - still no evidence that WP:ENT or WP:GNG have been met. Popularity does not equal notability. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 00:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've no problem with deleting an article as a G4 after an admin indicated that restoring the article to mainspace was okay? I'd think that indicates at least enough debate on the matter than an AfD is called for. Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I took part in the first DRV for this subject (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 23) and my decision still stands. First of all the original AFD should have been No consensus and NOT deletion. Wizardman, the closing administrator, deleted it with his own discretion. The fact that he moved the content in "Sierra Nicole McCormick" to "Sierra McCormick", basically surrendering to the frequent re-creations, proves that he wasn't the right administrator for the aforementioned AFD in the first place. There are currently 3 different userspace drafts for the subject, that's right 3: here, here and here. As well as interest in Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sierra McCormick. The actor has a regular role in popular television series (A.N.T. Farm) that was just renewed for a second season and appeared in a notable film (Ramona and Beezus), how is WP:ENTERTAINER not met. Also even if the article is not restored, It WILL be re-created, if it is not salted anyway or we will have yet another deletion review a few months from now. QuasyBoy 22:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually there's a 4th here. Maybe some combination of all 4 versions can meet the requirements. For An Angel (talk) 02:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the four drafts improve upon or establish notability of the subject. What we need is significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Seriously, independent sources are vital here. Additionally, Ramona and Beezus was not a significant role at all. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 12:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Not only should the AfD have been closed as "no consensus", but strong evidence of notability has been shown since closure. For those concerned that it wasn't "properly sourced," that is not a reason for deletion or even AfD but for editing and improvement. In fact WP:AFD states: "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination."--Oakshade (talk) 06:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Oakshade.LuciferWildCat (talk) 11:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn In addition to her current major role in a TV series A.N.T. Farm she also had a major recurring role as the main antagonist, Lilith, in a two episode arch of Supernatural (TV series). This is more than sufficient for notability. Original AfD should have been closed as no consensus and the article not deleted. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:57, 26 December 2011 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Mentyvamenvocal.ogg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Accidentally deleted without moving to Wikimedia Commons. The file isn't copyrighted under the Russian copyright law. It was nominated by an anonymous visitor with the reason: "Target for moving the free file to Commons." Chtak Yuno (talk) 03:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Looks like an oopsiex2, IP editor tagged it ffd instead of move to commons and Fastily deleted it without appearing to look at the tag. I shall have to point Wile E. Coyote in his direction again. File wants moving to Commons if someone has a moment. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2011 (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/2011_December_19&oldid=1138437901"