Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 December 4

Clinton_Ehrlich – Speedy close as inappropriate nomination. Every single Keep !vote in the AfD was from an IP with no history, and this nomination is from a WP:SPA. If an established editor wishes to contest this AfD, with a policy-based argument, that's fine, but we're not doing this. – -- RoySmith (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

There are two reasons.

First, there is significant new information that shows the subject is notable. After the original article was deleted, NBC News ran a primetime special on the subject.

Trailer: https://www.instagram.com/p/BMnDkslA3wi/ Full Episode: http://www.nbcnews.com/dateline/video/full-episode-the-man-who-knew-too-much-812427331656

Second, the closer of the AfD discussion interpreted it incorrectly. There was no consensus reached that the general notability guideline was not satisfied.

Two users said "Delete" because there were no reliable independent sources. Then a user said "Keep" and posted nine sources. These were very strong sources, such as the BBC.

After the sources were posted, nobody responded, so the admin "Sandstein" relisted the discussion. I said "Keep," and so did other unregistered users.

The only new support for "Delete" came from a user who said he "tried his best" but couldn't find the sources. He must not have read the beginning of the discussion, where the URLs were all posted.

Nobody ever criticized the sources that were posted, so no consensus for "Delete" could exist. If anything, the consensus was to "Keep."

I explained this problem to the admin who deleted the article, and he told me to create a deletion review: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MBisanz/Archive_20#Afd_Clinton_Ehrlich

I hope this article can now be restored, like the rules require. Thank you. ReinhardStove (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse I don't know what's the play here. I am the editor who said she "tried her best". All keep !votes were spammy. The current source(s) mentioned are a waste of time, whether BBC or NBC (sorry for saying that, but as volunteers, it's frustrating to see our time wasted on clicking links that don't even have a mention of the subject). Might I suggest that you first read Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, specially the verifiability policy and the guideline about reliable sources? Please don't hesitate to ask me for any assistance on my talk page. Thanks. Lourdes 16:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When you analyse that debate in terms of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and disregard those !votes which are inappropriate, you've got an absolutely crystal clear consensus to delete. I endorse MBisanz' accurate reading of the discussion.—S Marshall T/C 17:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

4 December 2016[edit]