Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 April 9

Lyle Stevik – endorsed but early relist permitted – Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lyle Stevik is an unidentified body with no coverage in reliable sources other than databases of dead bodies. It was previously AFDed in January. The 2nd AFD which has recently closed as keep, I am looking to either flat out overturn and delete, or relist. If it is to relist, I hope User:BabbaQ, User:Ceradon and User:Davey2010 can better explain how they feel it meets "WP:VICTIM, WP:ONEEVENT and WP:GNG". I have already notified the closing user, User:Spirit of Eagle.

The only !voters in that discussion are the same ones in the original AFD, which User:Gourami Watcher, the article author pinged. The only additional vote was from User:Transylvanian Thunderbolt, who is more interested in having Wikipedia to promote the case than in Wikipedia itself. I believe closing the second nomination with no new voices, a "substantive procedural error", and I argue that any weight given to keep voting without reliable secondary sources to be in error too.

I have significant concerns about Gourami Watcher's dead-persons passion project. I've also AFDed articles of his which (slightly better than Stevik) have only local newspaper sources, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tempe Girl and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pemiscot County Does. I am not appealing those, but believe these articles could do with much more oversight, I certainly don't want to see articles such as Stevik promoted on the main page. - hahnch e n 20:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse- there is no way the AfD could have been closed with any other result. This seems to be a case of re-arguing the AfD and attacking the article creator, rather than a genuine attempt to argue that the closer got it wrong. Reyk _YO! 05:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
endorse, unfortunately. I think the result was utterly ridiculous, and an illustration of the absurdity of the GNG when used uncritically, but the close was in accord with the expressed opinion at the afd & could not have been different. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Lately I've been doing a little work on similar unsolved-mystery articles, primarily disappearances (but also Death of Elisa Lam) I have worked with Gourami Watcher on some of these and admire his dedication. But I do think some of these UIDs are better handled as list items since they have not reached more than local notability (unless we decide that inclusion on the Doe Project's pages clears that hurdle). However, I think within that field Stevik has his own notability as it is rather unusual in these cases for an unidentified decedent to leave a pseudonym behind so we can't just call them John Doe. It may not have been said out loud in the sources used, but it's rather obvious. Daniel Case (talk) 05:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I was unconvinced of the argument at AFD that something is notable because a Wikipedian says so, that we trust them over reliable secondary sources. - hahnch e n 14:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See here. DRV is not the place to reiterate arguments from an AfD. You have to focus on an argument that the closing admin misassessed the consensus, which you haven't been doing effectively. Hahn-estly (sorry about that

), if you believe it's not long-term notable, you can renominate this in a year or so's time if the level of sourcing remains the same. This is a luxury you have with XfDs closed as keep. Daniel Case (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The case to overturn this is made in the 2nd paragraph. I can't see how AFD works if the only participants are those that the author pings. - hahnch e n 14:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "the author pinged those people, so I don't think those votes count" is a valid argument at DRV, unless those voters can be shown to be socks or newly-created SPAs. If someone is asked to participate in an AfD, as long as they are Wikipedians in good standing we have to take their !votes at face value. Daniel Case (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with DGG up to a point. The outcome was in accordance with the consensus and that was the only possible close ---- but at the same time, the consensus was preposterous and the conclusion was utterly wrong. Endorse, but permit early renomination so we can have a better discussion and delete this properly.—S Marshall T/C 10:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There was no other reasonable way anyone could have closed the discussion, so I endorse it per DGG and S Marshall. I would also grant leave to relist at an early stage without shouts of "speedy keep, it's just been on AFD" — to the extent that's something DRV can do. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Imeh Usuah – endorsed – Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The above article was deleted on October 8, 2014 by Joe Decker as WP:BIO1E in this AfD. I think WP:BLP1E does not applies in this case. In 2007, 8 years ago there was significant coverages in multiple RS about his returned of a missing $120,000. In 2012, he received the Securities and Exchange Commission maiden integrity award. In 2014, he received a National Award Member of the Order of the Federal Republic a well-known and significant award or honor decorated by the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Goodluck Ebele Jonathan making the subject of the article to meet WP:ANYBIO. I think the article is of enduring historical importance. I will be glad if the deletion can be reviewed. Thanks! Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£}

Endorse. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the close. With the exception of one procedural comment which clearly mis-interpreted policy, there was unanimous consensus, citing core policies, to delete. There are some events which are so significant that a single incident can overcome BP1E concerns (Tank Man, for example). This is not one of those events. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Given that over 300 people received the Member of the Order of the Federal Republic in September 2014 ([1], [2]) it is not an award that is going to confer notability. He remains a non-notable person known only for one event. The close was correct and the evidence to overturn it is insufficient. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse sorry, but this is pretty much a textbook example of BLP1E. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

9 April 2015[edit]