- Matthew Vaughan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
There is certainly no consensus to delete this page. The discussion was improperly closed with the comment that it was a BLP without reliable resources which made its deletion mandatory. However, this is the biography of an actor who had a major role in a major British soap opera for four years. There was no contentious material in the article and the fact that he appeared in the programme is something that can be easily ascertained from a multitude of sources. Since TV programmes are media in their own right they are themselves reliable sources, even if primary. While I contend that playing a major role in a major soap for four years does make an actor notable, even if he has not had any major roles since, I have no problem with a close to delete after full discussion and a consensus. However, I do have a problem with closure on what I consider to be wholly spurious grounds. The closer considers that since the article was nominated for deletion the entire content of the article thus becomes contentious and the deletion was therefore justified. I completely disagree with this interpretation. This is an issue of notability of the subject, not of contentious material within the article. This is also an issue of WP:BLP and WP:BLPPROD not actually saying what some editors clearly think they say. Nowhere do they say that articles on living persons should be deleted out of hand just because they have no "reliable" sources. A BLPPROD should not even be placed on an article that has a source, even a "non-reliable" one. They call for improvement, not deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. I voted keep and was surprised to see the closing comment saying that deletion was mandatory, it gave the impression the AfD discussion was irrelevant and that the content was contentious. However I read no contentious content. The issue in hand has also been discussed on the talk page of the closer. Szzuk (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As closer, I remain of the view that my closure was correct. It is uncontested that this WP:BLP article had no reliable sources at the time of closure, and nobody was apparently able to find any during the AfD. WP:BLPSOURCES, part of the main BLP policy, provides: "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable". It follows from this that any BLP article that has no reliable sources at all must be removed in its entirety if it is challenged in its entirety, such as by way of a deletion proposal. Per its own terms, the application of WP:BLP takes priority over all considerations of consensus. Sandstein 15:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- But that isn't what BLP says. Nowhere does it say that any article should face mandatory deletion. You appear to be putting your own spin on it which just isn't there. It's not the material in the article that's being challenged by sending to Afd; it's the notability of the subject. They are totally different things. Even BLPPROD does not mandate deletion of an article with even one source, even if that source is not considered to be "reliable". If what you say is correct then surely it would do. This is the main reason I put it up for deletion review; we cannot have administrators deleting articles claiming a mandate that isn't there. Allowing this to pass unchallenged would set a very dangerous precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus. I don't agree with the keep arguments that appearing in one soap opera is enough to pass the notability guidelines. However, it is not mandatory to delete unsourced BLPs, and the BLP policy doesn't say it is mandatory. The policy instead is that any contentious unsourced information should be removed. Challenging material because you think it might be wrong, and suggesting an article should be deleted due to the subject not being notable aren't the same thing, and the closer was wrong to conflate the two. I can't see the article while it was deleted, but it doesn't sound like the material was contentious (i.e., no one seemed in doubt that he did play a role in a soap opera). The closer was simply wrong about the policy, and there was no consensus from the discussion whether to keep or delete the content, so the discussion should have been closed as no consensus. (Personally, I think the suggestion to redirect to the character he played makes sense, but there obviously wasn't a consensus to do that). Calathan (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist. Even if the article had been a valid WP:BLPPROD candidate (and it barely escaped this), the policy speaks of "if the biography remains unsourced after seven days, the biography may be deleted" and "if you decide to delete the biography". Now, I would have agreed with an AfD close of delete except for the closing comment about deletion being mandatory. Since other types of close might also have been within discretion, I think it appears that the closer may have felt excessively constrained. An AfD nomination indeed challenges the existence of the article as a stand-alone item but it is not necessarily a claim that all (or, indeed, any) of the specific content is likely to be challenged. Thincat (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist, though I'm not unhappy with the article being deleted, I was also slightly surprised at the reasonong. My understanding is that certain unsourced BLP's meet speedy deletion criteria. There's no requirement for reliablity of sources. Noone is challenging (or demanding additional sources to prove) the fact the subject appeared in a UK soap opera, but simply questioning whether this was significant enough to meet notability requirements. Sionk (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- BLP policy requires us to remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious information about living people (emphasis mine). It does not say "delete articles about living people".—S Marshall T/C 17:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually BLP does require at least one source. And unless the article was edited and I missed it, it cited only one non-RS, source. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually there's nothing in WP:BLP that requires at least one source. WP:V says you need a source for anything challenged or likely to be challenged, but even so, there must be a consensus for deletion.—S Marshall T/C 18:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- From BLP... All BLPs created after March 18, 2010 must have at least one source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article, or it may be proposed for deletion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What you are copying is the summary of the WP:BLPPROD process from WP:BLP. BLPPROD is a separate deletion process from AFD, and the instructions for BLPPROD do not apply to AFD. Furthermore, while I can't see when the article was created while it was deleted, Thincat says above that it was (just barely) not a valid candidate for BLPPROD. Also keep in mind that even an unreliable source or external link prevents an article from being deleted by BLPPROD if the source/link was in the article before the BLPPROD tag was added (again, I can't see if the article had any unreliable sources or external links right now). Regardless of if the article was eligible for BLPPROD (and I trust Thincat that it wasn't), it would still need to have had a BLPPROD tag in place for seven days before it could be deleted under that rationale . . . having an AFD tag for seven days would not be sufficient, as AFD is a different process than BLPPROD. Calathan (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not debating the points you raised, which I believe are accurate. My above comments were limited to affirming that BLP does in fact require at least one source for articles created after March 18, 2010. My position regards this particular AfD is stated below. Best regards -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't see the article either but I looked at the Google archive[1] and saw IMDB (given as an "external link") and implied reference to the TV series itself. Thincat (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That's also my recollection. Hence my above statement that the article had only one non-RS source. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Which would save it from a BLPPROD! If it can't even be BLPPRODed, I really don't think the argument that it should be deleted out of hand at AfD holds any water whatsoever. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. In fact as far as I know, any article is susceptible to a PROD at any time, with or without a reason, with or without a source. At DRV we would not normally think PROD of any kind was relevant to an AfD outcome.There are editors who think any article without sources can and should be deleted. That's a legitimate point of view, but it's not policy (not even for biographies). The true case is that any article that's unsourceable should be deleted or redirected. This is one of the functions of the AfD process: to decide whether it's sourceable. Nominating an article for deletion on the basis that it's unsourceable creates a rebuttable presumption that the material should be deleted. This presumption is rebutted by providing a reliable source. In this case we have a source, the reliability of which is disputed. Therefore we look for a consensus, and I don't see one. DRV won't care about NACTOR, we'll treat it as we usually treat SNGs. We care about WP:V, and specifically the "challenged or likely to be challenged" bit, but that's a value judgment about the reliability of the source available and therefore it's subject to the consensus at AfD. It's not an overriding consideration. However, I think reasonable people could differ about this one and I do understand how Sandstein reached his conclusion. This was almost within discretion. Weak overturn and relist.—S Marshall T/C 13:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Endorse Right call but the weakest reason. This article clearly fails NACTOR, RS and V. When you cut through all the back and forth, any 'Keep' argument essentially boils down to IAR. I might be able to overlook shortcomings in one of the the three FAILSs, but chucking all three standards is a bridge too far for me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak overturn and relist - I think the line highlighted above is open to interpretation and I certainly see the merit in the interpretation taken by the closer. That said, it does specifically apply to PROD processes, not to AFD. The best way to manage situations that require those sorts of interpretations is to subject them to further discussion. There doesn't seem to be consensus above that the closer's interpretation of that particular policy is necessarily supported by others. That's probably not a discussion for this AFD (if it is relisted) but for other forums. But in the absence of strong support for that interpretation, the discussion should probably be allowed to continue until there is a consensus either way. Stalwart111 08:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - fails WP:N is an enormous hurdle for a deletion discussion to overcome (BLP or not). A smallish, balanced headcount + an overwhelming policy precendent means close with the precedent. If the "unsourced BLP" problem can be overcome, fix it, and the question raised here is moot. If it can't, we can't do anything helpful here anyhow. WilyD 08:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Rewrite with added sources, if there are any. IMdB is reliable enough to prove the role to a reasonable degree of confidence, which is enough to pass BLPPROD. We do not however usually keep articles where no other source can be found. It amazes me that almost nobody here or at the AfD has discussed whether there are additional sources. It would seem to be that someone must have written something -- he was a major character in a major soap opera. Whether such a role is sufficient for notability is a matter of judgement, and AfD is the way to find out--but it needs to be an AfD based on either the available sources, or a determination that there aren't any. The close was improper: a consensus that the sources weren't enough would justify deletion,, and I do see absence of consensus. But deletion was not mandatory in the absence of consensus when there was reasonable evidence for the basic factor that might give notability. DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. The closer made the correct call as the article is entirely unsourced. If reliable sources can be found, a new attempt can be made write the article. Hot Stop talk-contribs 02:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it wasn't entirely unsourced, which made it ineligible for summary deletion even under WP:BLPPROD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn this specific closure, which misstates policy. Indeed if the closer's summary of policy above was accurate then unsourced or poorly sourced BLPs could be deleted on sight by anyone with no process at all. There is no policy anywhere which mandates the deletion of unsourced BLPs simply for being unsourced. The section quoted above only applies to contentious material, and the article did not say anything contentious. If that policy section was intended to apply everywhere when the word "contentious" would not be in it. It is certainly possible to close an AfD as Delete based on the lack of any reliable sources, but not on these grounds. Hut 8.5 07:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to NC I have a lot of sympathy for the closer's view, but the reason given for the deletion just isn't correct. The article is sourced enough to be immune to BLPPROD, so that policy can't be used as the basis for deletion here. And WP:BLP only applies to contentious material Plus there are WP:RSs out there (none great, but enough to show he was in the show in question playing the character stated for certain). this for example. Hobit (talk) 13:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- On further thought, relist is a better option here. Hobit (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite endorse. This was a BLP without reliable sourcing. The majority of commenters at the AFD favored removing the article. The close therefore fell within the closer's discretion, even though the closing statement may have been too strong. However, the closer missed the best closing action available, to redirect the subject to List of Emmerdale characters (1990)#Michael Feldmann. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, although I think the reasoning provided by the closer above isn't great. More or less I agree with Ad Orientem that the two keep opinions are IAR, neither playing to arguments toward general notability via sources (none were shown in the discussion), nor inherent notability described in Wikipedia special notability guidelines. As to whether there are better sources, I don't believe that is actually what DRV is here to determine, that would be AfD2. --j⚛e deckertalk 13:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think DRV is primarily a discussion about the validity of the close. So a bad close and the right decision should lead to overturn, as should a bad close and a bad decision. Was deletion mandatory? Szzuk (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist - There is nothing in WP:BLP to support the view that the mere listing of an unsourced BLP article at AfD is a basis to close the AfD discussion as delete the article. The misses the whole point about consensus discussions. Here, the closer of the deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly. As for the topic, the only source I could find on the topic is Daily Mirror December 30, 2010. The delete outcome is very likely, but it needs to be done correctly to maintain editor support for the consensus process. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse- Ad Orientem has convinced me. Reyk YO! 08:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist - There is no policy that requires unsourced BLP's to be immediately deleted. This AfD was "no consensus" at best. I think it deserves another shot. ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 20:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
