- Sierra McCormick (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I do not believe consensus was reached at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sierra McCormick for it to be deleted. I tried discussing this with the closing admin (User:Wizardman) here and here, but he stands by his judgment. The AfD had two keep !votes, one neutral !vote, one delete !vote, and one delete !vote from the nominator. Wizardman discounted one of the keep !votes as an ILIKEIT rationale, but I argue that the one delete !vote should be discounted as well for citing the many previous deletions of the article via CSD as a reason to delete it once more. If these two !votes are discounted, there is no consensus to delete, and I believe the article should be restored. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The compelling argument to keep was based on presumed notability through WP:ENT, while the strongest argument to delete specifically refuted that by detailing exactly what those appearances were and making a case for them being trivial (a bit-part appearance on a quiz show, a bit-part appearance on a sitcom that lasted four episodes, and tenth billing in a film). As AfD isn't a head count (would that "!vote" were banished forever), this looks to be a comprehensive logical argument for deletion. The closing admin was therefore perfectly correct in his assessment of the AfD, and what with the actress being a minor (and this evidently being recreated every time Hannah Montana gets re-run on Disney) user:Ged UK was right to subsequently salt the title. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Beg pardon, but the first-run date for that show reads June 17, 2011 to my weary eyes. DRV is supposed to be a review of whether the admin acted appropriately in weighing up what was stated in the AfD, rather than a do-over. If it turns out in six weeks (months, years, what have you) that enough reliable sources have written about A.N.T. Farm that the case for passing WP:ENT is stronger then so be it, but the closing admin could hardly be said to have acted improperly in not considering a part in an ensemble cast for a show which first aired three days before the AfD closed as cast-iron satisfaction of notability. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse outcome, but . . . This was a very unsatisfactory AFD discussion. There were only six contributors: Cindamuse, whose nomination and supporting arguments were cogent and well-thought-out; Curb Chain, whose delete argument simply recited the long history of past speedys; Smeazel, who ended up being neutral because the WP:ENT keep argument hadn't been properly established; Jusdafax, whose comment was just ITSNOTABLE; Quasyboy, who argued that the upcoming TV series would establish notability; and Schmidt, who argued tautologies tendentiously and at great length, insisting that others had the responsibility to disprove his unsupported premises, which otherwise had to be taken as gospel (yes, we have a history). Under these circumstances, with divided sentiment, poor discussion (Cindamuse and Smeazel aside), the article history, and the only soundly-based-in-policy arguments supporting deletion, the close was clearly within the closer's discretion. Particularly since none of the article's proponents came up with a lick of coverage that really went beyond cast listings. That said, Eagles247 is probably accurate in saying that the newest role will likely be sufficient to establish notability, but rather than arguing the point in theory it would be better to simply find and cite the relevant coverage in a rewritten article. If that coverage takes a couple weeks to see print or pixel, so be it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- An overriding consideration here is that this was a BLP of a child. If BLPs require very strict compliance with policies and guidelines, then how much stricter must we be when the subject is a minor? Because that was a BLP of a child, the closer can justifiably err on the side of caution. This means I think there were two outcomes within admin discretion, based on that discussion: "delete" and "no consensus". I think it would be wrong of us to overturn.—S Marshall T/C 18:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion, but I agree that the A.N.T. Farm role may be enough to meet the notability criteria (although as yet, there doesn't appear to be much coverage online at reliable independent sources). As HW mentions, the first episode (excluding the "series preview" episode aired in May) only aired a few days before the AfD was closed. Even now, the 2nd episode has (as I type, assuming my calculations are correct!) not been broadcast. Rewriting the article might be justified, but the close was correct based on the arguments and the minor roles she had had up to that point (as argued by those wanting to delete the article) PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- endorse deletion None of the sources seem to present anything other than her existence and presence in some of the shows in question. Recreate when there are enough sources. I could reasonably have seen someone closing the AfD as no-consensus, but given the BLP concerns and the absolute paucity of sources this seems sensible. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Admins have some discretion in this sort of context. This AfD could reasonably have been closed as an outright delete or a no-consensus. When an AfD lacks consensus, and there are strong, compelling, policy reasons for one result, that's a valid reason for an admin to close accordingly, especially when the strength of the arguments are clearly on one side. I'm one of the editors who thinks that admins shouldn't have much discretion, so if I think this was close enough, then... yeah. Wait until you have more sources and have it be recreated then. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Eagles 24/7 is absolutely right, a consensus was not reached, so the AFD outcome should have been "no consensus" plain and simple. In my opinion the article should never been AFD'd in the first place. A cleanup tag or unreferenced BLP tag would have been much more justified. But there some editors on this site that are so ready to cry deletion and do not believe adding cleanup tags for BLP's anymore. I was one of one users that took part in that AFD and just as I suspected, someone was going to try to re-create the page, less than a week after the AFD outcome no less, which is why it is currently salted. The actress has a regular role in a television series now and appeared in a notable film (Ramona and Beezus), seems like WP:ENTERTAINER is met to me. QuasyBoy 14:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse- Rough consensus is all that is required to reach a decision, and this is based on strength of argument. In my opinion rough consensus to delete was achieved. The keep !votes were weak, and effectively refuted in terms of our policies and guidelines. Reyk YO! 22:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus. I'm loathe to defer to the usual admin discretion when no reasoning is given for the close. In the absence of strong reasoning (yes there is one junk keep !vote but there is also one very weak delete !vote), I can't see how a the debate led to a delete outcome. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- weak Overturn The discussion had no consensus but a delete may have been within discretion. Normally if I'm unsure I just don't comment, but there is a what I think is a new source:[1] ). I don't follow celebrity anything so it might be flawed for some reason, but on first pass it looks to be enough when combined with the older sources. WP:ENT is probably passed anyways given her role in the new show. Eh. Hobit (talk) 06:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close, but agree that the discussusion could have been better. I'd have liked to have seen the closer make up for this weakness by giving a longer close rational, though. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 08:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure, weakly. I think this was the right outcome, based on the substance of the AfD discussion. Cindamuse and Smeazel each did a good job of analyzing this article's notability issues in detail. The latter editor originally voted "weak keep," but retreated to a neutral position on the grounds that he didn't "know enough about the shows in question to judge whether her parts in them are notable or not (though even if they are, it would still be only a borderline keep anyway)." The other "keep" and "delete" arguments were relatively weak. The exception, some have said, is the opinion provided by Michael Q. Schmidt. He argued, at length, that the subject met WP:ENT because of her 22-episode run as a "student" on the Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader? game show. Having seen that show in the past, I personally find Michael's argument (in this particular case) quite weak. Jeff Foxworthy's work on Fifth Grader is a "significant role." The "student" roles on Fifth Grader are just about as "significant" as the roles of the briefcase-toting models on Deal or No Deal – I'm firmly of the opinion that they're not. Although I think this was the proper outcome, the closing admin should have provided a statement.
So, how to proceed? As others have noted, the subject of this article is likely to become clearly notable under WP:ENT in the very near future. Perhaps this should now be userfied, sent to the article incubator, or simply restored to mainspace upon request once multiple independent, reliable sources are identified. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
