Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 July 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2015 June 30
2015 July 2 >

1 July 2015[edit]

  • Misty Edwards – Deletion is endorsed by a clear consensus and the editor who brought it to Deletion Review has withdrawn the request to overturn the deletion. – Davewild (talk) 21:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Misty Edwards (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Her article was erroneously deleted from this encyclopedia, AfD, and should be reinstated. See, Cross Rhythms (eight reviews), AllMusic (Biography), 13 Billboard magazine chartings, CBN interview, Relevant magazine interview, All about Worship audio interview, New Release Today "Behind the Song" feature, and CCM Magazine has reviewed her last two albums and probably more. She (Her article) is 100 percent notable, per GNG and MUSICBIO guidelines and policies, and this makes the deletion rather absurd, with regards to the article in question. If you kept the album article, created by myself, then couldn't you all see her profile articlewas notable? These are all reliable sources that I presented, and you may want to look at CCM sources to better familiarize yourselves with the publications, who cover Christian music. The Cross Bearer (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. Could not be closed any other way. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is VERY hard to see how we can justify an overturn of such a clear AfD. You would be better advised to discuss sourcing with the deleting adming, and before that, to consider seriously that the subject herself requested deletion. Has Misty Edwards been covered by reliable secondary sources providing coverage beyond her album? If not, then maybe, per WP:BIO1E, it is only appropriate to include an introduction on the album article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Musicians make music that gets covered and bought, and this is what makes them notable, at the end of the day. The reviews provide coverage of her music and the chartings show commercial viability, making her profile article well beyond just scratching the surface of notability, plus, The Christian Post, (has a lengthy interview), on her making her biographical article even more notable. You all evidently did not take into consideration, NEXIST, when you all were discussing the merits of the article in question, for the fact of "Notability is based on the existence of sources, not solely the state of sourcing in an article". I can recognize the article may not have been sourced well or sufficiently, however you all did not do your due diligence to research the topic, like I presented here and above. For your information, Cross Rhythms is the biggest Christian music/radio/former magazine/currently online publication in the United Kingdom, and they have reviewed eight of her albums, where I would call it notability alone! (Comment from another forum by myself to another editor)The Cross Bearer (talk) 05:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say the interviews by Relevant Magazine, The Christian Post, All about Worship, and having a biographic in AllMusic, pretty much mean her notability has been established and anonymity busted up and shredded to pieces. Also, how can someone have 13 Billboard chartings and get deleted in the first place, when I can create a discography page off of an artist biographical page. At this point, I am highly considering recreating the article myself to show this community the err of its ways.The Cross Bearer (talk) 05:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of scope. From the instructions at the top of the page:
    • Deletion Review should not be used:
      1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment
      2. when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination
    • Therefore I recommend no action. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did, Look Here.The Cross Bearer (talk) 08:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As always, I differ with Stifle on this point . A closing that does not reflect the actual situation is an error;--if the closer did not evaluate the information properly, he made an error; if the information available to the closer was not adequate or representative the closer also made an error, though it wasn't his fault. All systems have some way to rectify error. The over-riding principle is NOT BURO. We should not be erected technical barriers to restoring articles which should not have This is the place for evaluating closes, not closers. (I have no comment on the actual article--it's not my field) DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have some sort of alert set to pop up whenever I post that someone's DRV listing is out of scope because they have failed to follow the process which has been long-established by consensus? I have told you over and over again that I believe such posts are misguided and that the correct venue for you to seek to change the filtering criteria for DRV listings is WT:DRV, yet I am not aware of you having tried to establish a consensus there. Were you not such a well-established editor I would be seriously considering reporting you for hounding. Stifle (talk) 08:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since, "Deletion Review should not be used", I went ahead and brought back the article, under extremely notable standards.The Cross Bearer (talk) 09:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe that you were warned above by @Stifle: to not do that, under caution of being blocked. Is the article that currently sits there identical to the version that was deleted, because if so, it would be deleted again as a recreation of a deleted article. Is it a copy that you retained before it was deleted? Were there other editors at any time who edited the article as well? If so, then the current one may be a copyright violation, as there is no longer attribution for the other editor's edits. Tarc (talk) 13:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't believe it's eligible for G4 speedy deletion, the new article is much longer although it is based on the same sources. Still, it was very bad form and very WP:POINTy to recreate it while this discussion was on. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

All the information contained in the newly constructed article was written by myself, from the sources that I found. It is in my style of writing and my words, and no one else's. This is not plagiarism nor a copyright violation. I am truly sorry for my somewhat pointy behavior, however when presented with the information I found, then, I had to progress forward in substantiating the artists' notability once and for all.The Cross Bearer (talk) 02:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm confused as to why you are so hell-bent on including this article on Wikipedia, especially when an OTRS ticket was put in by the article subject stating that she did not want an article about herself on Wikipedia AND two previous AfD's resulted in a delete decision. Given the obscure notability of the topic, and the desire of the person to not be included it seems questionable to continue pursuing this when there are literally millions of other articles you could be working to improve, or other notable topics you could create articles about. Granted, you may have improved the article from the previous version, but the way you went about it, kind of makes it a moot point for me. I almost nominated it for deletion again before I saw this delrev, so I guess we need to determine now if it should be nominated for a third time or not in this review since the article has already been re-created. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AfD is completely unambiguous, I have applied WP:CSD#G4 to the re-creation. Guy (Help!) 08:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am sorry, for the way I handled this situation regarding the article incorrectly and inappropriately, per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Now, how can I go about salvaging the article in question? I am 100 percent certain, it is notable, for inclusion as part of this encyclopedia. Please, help me, someone!The Cross Bearer (talk) 09:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That "imagine a world" is a Jimbo-ism that I'd love to see sent down an Orwellian memory hole, never to be uttered again. Marginally notable people should have the right to not be written about by pseudonymous individuals, especially on request. That should be the higher precedent. Tarc (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The point I was trying to make, is that there are many non-controversial things that need to be worked on, and this seems to be a low-priority to many of those regardless of our policies regarding an articles subject being allowed to determine their inclusion or not. I'm familiar with the policy stating that notable subjects do not have the option, but sometimes it's better to let it go even if you believe the subject to be notable. I see your main editing targets are Christian musicians, and I'm sure there is all kinds of other work to be done in this area so why not focus on those? I'm sorry you've received so much flack for this, believe me I've been in your position with many other editors against me and I know it doesn't feel great. I apologize if I came across a little too harsh. Cheers. -War wizard90 (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Evaluating some of the sources presented here, I'm not terribly impressed. Many of them are interviews. That's not an automatic problem, but it's a red flag. See Wikipedia:Interviews.
Another problem is the niche aspect of many of the sources. The best sources are ones with the widest range of coverage and readership. When a major newspaper covers a subject, that says that of all the wide array of subjects out there which they might have possibly devoted space to, they felt this subject stood out as being of interest to a sizeable segment of their broad readership. As the focus of the publication narrows, the selectivity gets reduced. A publication which focuses on the entertainment industry will be more inclined to print anything entertainment-related than a broad-readership publication. This effect increases as the focus continues to narrow. A publication which focuses only on music is less selective than one which covers all of entertainment. And, publications which focus exclusively on a specific genre of music, even more so. In this case. most of the sources are publications which focus exclusively on christian music. That's a very narrow focus, so you would expect there's a lower bar for inclusion, as long as the subject falls into that genre.
FInally, I looked at the All Music source. Since they cover all of music, not just one genre, they seem like a more useful source than most of the others. But, after poking around their website a bit, I conclude that they exercise no selectivity at all. From their FAQ page, Artist information such as photos, written biographies (...) come from our data provider, Rovi. There's also instructions for how to get into the Rovi database, You can mail Rovi one copy of the product along with any relevant promotional materials. So, basically, if you send a press kit to Rovi, you end up on All Music.
-- RoySmith (talk) 14:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to assess my value to Wikipedia, for the fact CCM sources are not adequate to substantiate notability, even with MUSICBIO being met by two or more benchmarks. The only reason, I am here editing as part of this encyclopedia, is Jesus Christ called me to do so, for his namesake.The Cross Bearer (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please, I hope someone will be my guest, and get this deleted and removed from the encyclopedia, for good. It is Little Bird (Misty Edwards album).The Cross Bearer (talk) 02:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be a diva. The article on the album is fine. Unlike a biography article, the article on the album does not invite continued coverage of personal life, family, views, and all sorts of intrusions that, as per WP:BLP, Wikipedia takes a proactive, conservative attitude to avoid, especially with respect to private individuals. Standards for sources suitable for building content on albums are more generous than for BLPs. There is a big difference between Christian Music articles and Christian musician biographies. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: Explain to me what guidelines and policies, I am to follow then, with regard to future work on this encyclopedia? I am at a loss for words, for how to progress forward, at this point.The Cross Bearer (talk) 03:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are not very wrong about anything. I think you just didn't appreciate that WP:BLPs are held to a high standard compared to nearly everything else. For a living person, if there is no other full biography published, Wikipedia should not be the first to publish one, and in these borderline cases, the wishes of the subject are being increasingly respected.
Okay.The Cross Bearer (talk) 04:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Misty does not want a page online where anonymous people are likely to add information about her parents, children, religious practices and political opinions. If you write articles about the music, that will be fine. The only thing I think you need to take more care of is the very conservatively written WP:BLP, and to note that it sits above any notability guideline. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay.The Cross Bearer (talk) 04:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, any admin who closed a discussion with that much participation where those involved unanimously asked for "Delete", in any other way, would have been raked over the coals, and rightly so. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse 2 AFDs both ended in delete, 2nd was both recent and unanimous, no way it could have been closed any other way. DRV is not a place to merely express disagreement with an AFD consensus, as the page itself clearly points out. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm actually very surprised at the rejection of this article. While reviews of albums by an artist don't automatically render the artist themselves notable, they can be used in tandem with other sources to help solidify notability. The reviews, combined with the interviews and the AllMusic bio all come together to provide notability. To RoySmith - AllMusic is absolutely considered reliable and is indispensable to this project for music related content. It has been subject to numerous reliability discussions and it is a long-standing consensus that prose content, attributable to an author, on AllMusic is about as reliable as you can get for music journalism. As for the OTRS ticket, that I find interesting, and that might change my mind on this. Was there a particular reason that Edwards requested this? For instance, a BLP violation?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • While it isn't an absolute rule, generally the community is willing to accomidate reasonable requests by BLP subjects who do not wish to have an article, provided that the person isn't so notable that the omission would render the encyclopedia incomplete. Generally the specific reasons aren't made public (though sometimes it isn't hard to guess) and it's not even necessary that they have a reason--some people just don't want a WP article, and absent some very, very good reason to the contrary, we should respect that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you, Starblind. While Edwards is clearly notable, it is not so important to have an article about her as to over-ride her objection to having an article about herself. The Cross Bearer - please take notice of this. In all of the examples you have provided, I see none indicating an urgent need to include an article on Edwards on this encyclopedia against Edwards' own wishes.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The closing admin read the consensus correctly, there's no other way the discussion could have been closed. That the subject has asked for the article to be deleted hammers it home. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse I will give her what she wants, and quit working on anything pertaining to her or her music, for that matter. She wants her anonymity and privacy, I'll relent to her request, and she is now totally off of my radar screen, for the foreseeable future. God Bless, Misty Edwards, and have a good life!The Cross Bearer (talk) 03:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close; nominator now !voting to endorse and nobody else has suggested overturning. Stifle (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2015 (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/2015_July_1&oldid=1138440969"