Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 August 3

Liam McEwan – Listed at AfD, in the version proposed for creation. This is a request for unprotection and thus arguably made in the wrong forum: Because the deletion as such is uncontested, the unprotection request ought to have been made at WP:RPP. The discussion here has turned into a discussion about the notability of the article, and results in no consensus as to whether the article should be unsalted. If a DRV discussion results in no consensus, closers may relist the article at AfD at their discretion. I choose to do so because the article has not previously had a proper AfD discussion in which the subject's notability could be discussed. If the AfD results in a decision to delete, the page should be re-salted. – Sandstein 13:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am requesting desalting of this article name. The article, in various other guises, has been A7 speedy deleted numerous times over a number of years, and subsequently salted. However, there is a new version which seems to assert notability, and is backed up by reliable sources parked at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Liam McEwan. I have not contacted the administrator who I presume salted this, PMDrive1061, as they are marked as retired and have not contributed to Wikipedia for over a year. Ritchie333 (talk) 13:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced that a Shorty award proves notability , and I certainly would not consider that it does for one in a category where the subject was one of the 6 nominees and all six received first place, as here. The only other third party source in the article, the NZ Herald, is a RS, but the article is just about the station where he broadcasts and does not even mention him. I think that until there are better sources, the only reasonable conclusion is Not Yet Notable. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like DGG, I would not consider that this particular award shows notability. The sources in the AfC article are not sufficient either - the NZ Herald one does not mention him, 4 others are all from his radio station - and all appear to be "routine" coverage for a radio station anyway - and the final one is the Shorty-connected one, which is not sufficient for our purposes. Leave salted PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unsalt - Salting is a way to prevent the repeatedly recreation of an article without concern for its prior deletion history, process, or consensus. Listing the topic at Articles for creation demonstrates a desire to put the topic back into the Wikipedia machinery, seek consensus, and address its prior deletion history. Unsalt. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I don't think the topic Liam McEwan meets WP:GNG. I didn't find anything on Liam McEwan radio host. Also, the first of two sources listed at Articles for creation that is independent of the topic, Battle of the Auckland airwaves doesn't mention Liam. The Shorty Awards source could support the text, "Liam McEwan was nominated for a Shorty Award,[1] but that's not enough information for a stand alone Wikipedia article. He's in radio, so it is very odd that someone hasn't written information about him. Given his opportunity to come to the attention of others to write about him, he seems less GNG notable than others who are not in the public eye. If the topic is unsalted, it should be resalted immediately if any of the prior problems reemerge. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leave Salted or Re-Salt if necessary. Subject is not notable. He and possibly his friends and/or fans have repeatedly attempted to create a Wikipedia article about him since 2007 (see User talk:Liam.mcewan) when he was 11 years old. At 16, hosting a short radio program on a local community radio station broadcasting at less than one watt power does not make him notable. Winning a Shorty award where there was no clear winner does not establish notability (and would still be questionable even if he were a clear winner). As noted above, the only reliable source listed in the AfC doesn't even mention him, only the radio station. The other sources are unreliable, primary or both. If the article somehow passes AfC, it would immediately be nominated for deletion, unnecessarily taking time and effort better devoted elsewhere in WP. DocTree (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unsalt. This is a wiki, and a good faith user wishes to write an article in this space. That's sufficient.—S Marshall T/C 22:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep salted. If even DGG doesn't think there's an article to be written here, there probably isn't. To unsalt and move the AfC to mainspace when it will almost certainly be again deleted at AfD is a pointless waste of time and resources. T. Canens (talk) 03:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep salted - I just checked the new draft (and marked it as 'being reviewed' by the way) and still don't see enough WP:42 references to pass WP:GNG. mabdul 11:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List at AfD. http://twitpic.com/900rgg shows that he has had direct coverage in a newspaper. There is more than sufficient claim to beat WP:CSD#A7. This subject has never subjected to an AfD, and given the amount of interest, if someone wants a discussion, we should let them have it. I agree that the sources would be probably judged as not meeting the WP:GNG, but not meeting the GNG is not a speedy criterion. If found non-notable at AfD, I recommend a merge and redirect to The Flea 88.2, where the subject already has some coverage, but less than what is can be seen, sourced, at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Liam McEwan. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation but list per SmokeyJoe. This is no longer a speedy, so let it try at AfD. Hobit (talk) 12:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leave salted, the result is or at least should be clear here. A valid unsalting request would include a list of the independent and reliable sources covering the article subject in depth. It doesn't seem such exists here, and throwing it through AfD or otherwise is bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. If the sources still don't exist, still disallow, meme or otherwise. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you are accepting that this DRV discussion is serving as an AfD discussion? If not, then accept that there has been no deletion discussion. What you are therefore advocating is that administrators be allowed to speedy delete on their judgement of sources and WP:N. This denies the ordinary editor their role in running the project. You are headed the wrong way.
“Leave salted” also seems to ignore and rule out my point that this title probably should be a redirect to The_Flea_88.2 (a decision that should be made editorily, or at AfD, but not at DRV). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bianca Jade – Deletion endorsed. – Eluchil404 (talk) 05:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

She is a notable person: a latina entrepreneur who has devoted her life to women's fitness and helping women to prolong their lives with the new concept of fitness fashion & trend. She has been written about in many newspapers, magazines, websites, blogs and appeared on tv furthering this modern-day fitness movement. She is becoming a household name in women's fitness and comments about her not being pulled up on Google searches or having a relevant references from respectable and credible news sources is wrong because there is plenty of evidence in favor of her notability. Her page does wikipedia lots of good because it does women lots of good because it does th ehealth & fitness community a lot of good. But most of all she is NOTABLE. ShanaScala (talk) 05:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see this adds anything over the AfD, writing notable in capitals doesn't make an impressive argument. What's required is multiple non-trivial coverage in independant reliable sources. The commenters at the deletion discussion said the ones in the article didn't meet that standard and couldn't find others. To overcome that you need to find those sources and list some of them here (Read WP:GNG for a better description of what non-trivial etc means). Without those sources, this DRV should be closed as it's merely disagreement with the outcome, something the DRV specifically isn't about. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 06:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. No other decision was possible with the AfD as it was. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - reliable sources could not be found. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the original article and commented at the AfD. It was a puffed-up vanity piece of the most humorous sort. Endorse. Them From Space 01:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no other outcome was possible. However, at least one, if not more, Bianca Jade's are notable and would meet WP:GNG. Not sure if the above listed Bianca Jade is one of them. There's a Bianca Jade who was 16 on August 7, 1993 that was Australia's only entrant in the internationally acclaimed Ford Supermodel of the World competition.[2] If she kept up with it, she probably would meet WP:GNG. A search for Bianca Jade in The Age turned up some good info on Bianca Jades (you would have to go through each article to see who it is talking about).[3] Part of the problem is that Jade Jagger's mom is Bianca, so there are a lot of articles that mention her mother, Bianca and Jade. If Bianca Jade noted by the above original DRV poster has been written about in many newspapers and magazines, then ShanaScala need only create a Wikipedia article using those reliable sources. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – Not only was the AfD result unquestionably correct, but the person who submitted this review seems to be continuing in gaming the system and continuing the ruse regarding the sources, which in my view is disruptive. I also strongly recommend that the AfC creation, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bianca Jade of MizzFIT, also be deleted as the point is clear that the sole purpose of the article in the first place has been for blatant PR/promotion. --MuZemike 00:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure - no other outcome has been possible and there are no reliable source to be found. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I'm not seeing any evidence that the AfD was wrong or that anything has changed. Hobit (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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