Southcott (band) – Endorse, the arguments about Allmusic apparently have not convinced anyone that the AFD close was incorrect. Draftification received a bit of discussion but not conclusive due to concerns that it's not clear how it could be improved there; if people want to ask for it they can ask at WP:REFUNDJo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Allmusic is an accepted reliable source. It is not user-generated content. Biographies and Allmusic reviews are by Allmusic staff, some of whom are well known and long-established music writers. It's a myth that 'anyone can contribute' to Allmusic - it has user reviews, but these are clearly distinct from their staff reviews. Joda85 (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse DRV is used to charge that the close did not correctly reflect consensus, not that you didn't like consensus. Please see this, this, and this for discussions about that source. What I find funny is that this complaint repeats word for word this post and this post from Michig. It's an odd coincidence from an SPA. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really odd that someone trying to overturn an AfD copies and pastes something from that same AfD discussion? I'm not really sure what you're trying to insinuate here. --Michig (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Michig, I assume you were talking to User:Chris troutman. I just observed that he was a band member, which isn't insinuating anything. -- RoySmith(talk) 22:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, hence the indentation used. --Michig (talk) 09:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (or possibly draftify). I probably would have relisted this again, but I can't find any fault in the actual close. Participants at AfD have wide latitude to decide which sources meet our criteria. In this case, they obviously felt that the existing sources were not enough to meet WP:MUSICBIO, and the close correctly reflects that consensus. -- RoySmith(talk) 19:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See my reply to Lightburst, below, for thoughts on draftification. -- RoySmith(talk) 20:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The issue is not whether Allmusic is an independent reliable source (which it is not), but whether the closer acted reasonably, which they did, with reasoned statements to Delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Allmusic.com is not a reliable source[1]. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to re-drafting in draftspace, although I think it is hopeless. Proponents and authors need to read WP:NBAND and WP:RS. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Regardless of one's views about allmusic (and it can be a reliable source if used carefully, IMO) one source does not make a topic notable. I might have disagreed (or not) but the consensus was celar, and whether the sources in or out of the article are sufficient for notability is a judgement call, unless the judgement was way out of line with obvious facts, and that was not the case here. However, there should be no bar to starting a new draft in an attempt to find and display better sourcing, if that can be done. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can we Allow Draft? I can attempt to improve it. I have no problem with the closure here. I also see no issues with draft-spacing the article WP:PRESERVE. The band was once a rising concern and they had a following WP:ENT. I checked them out on the Wikipedia Mirror site Melodic Pop-Punk- sounds like many others. Since they have broke up, I am not sure any more information can arise - perhaps obituaries of the members... they did have a reunion in 2016. Lightburst (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no fundamental problem with draftification, but we need to be clear on what improve means. The problem found at AfD was that this failed WP:MUSICBIO due to a lack of good sources. So, your job will be to find better sources. Not more sources. Better sources. WP:MUSICBIO lists 12 points. The only one which seems plausible is point 1 (multiple, non-trivial, published works...). So, read that carefully (especially the clauses under except), and go find the sources. The best thing would be if you could find WP:THREE such sources and list them here at DRV. If you did that, it would eliminate the need for the trip through draftspace. -- RoySmith(talk) 20:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I can take two weeks to work on this article. If I cannot make the article WP worthy we could delete it with no harm to the project. I don't actually know if I can do it, but one of my interests is musical people and acts. I think it would be a challenge based on my preliminary search. I will leave it up to the participants here. Lightburst (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, this is not the place to relitigate arguments that failed at AfD but in any case AMG, which absolutely does include self-sourced and subject-submitted content, is basically a directory and does not support notability. The fact that the requester self-identified to Sandstein that they are part of the band doesn't get past the fact that the four accounts that added almost all the content are also WP:SPAs - this appears to have been an advertisement. Guy (help!) 13:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse because there were two clear supports for delete, and the one oppose was opaque, presented as a comment, whose arguments were refuted. While I agree with the oppose that AllMusic is a reliable source when considering the professional staff material, it is a grey area as far as Wikipedia goes, with no clearly defined guidance on the matter. I think what is needed is a RfC on AllMusic to establish when and how it can be used as a reliable source, and for the results to be posted in an easy to find location. SilkTork (talk) 09:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was not an opaque oppose presented as a comment, it was a comment presenting coverage that I found, which, if other people had found more could have contributed to notability. And it was not refuted, just the usual nonsense about Allmusic bios and reviews being user-submitted content, and an almost full-page article being dismissed as a "mention". --Michig (talk) 10:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The close was reasonable given the coverage identified and the balance of views expressed in the discussion. --Michig (talk) 10:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Lera Loeb – No consensus. Some initial confusion about who the deleting admin was aside, the question here is basically whether the debatable claims of notability or significance - which, as we know, are not the same thing as far as WP:CSD#A7 and WP:GNG are concerned - in the article are actually valid and thus an argument for overturning the A7 speedy deletion. It seems like every aspect has been convered, from the notability of related topics, whether they spill over as "significance" to related subjects, to reliability of particular sources, whether a claim of notability is also a claim of significance and whether being/saying to be a mail-order bride is a claim of significance. By headcount we see 7 endorses and 9 send-to-afd-es, which is perhaps closer to an "overturn and list at AFD" but not clear enough to make a consensus IMO, and the strength of the arguments does not clearly lean into a particular direction either. Thus no consensus, and the deletion is thus maintained by default and the deletion is reversed. I know that sometimes we treat "No consensus" on reviews of speedy deletions as "list at AFD"; the reasons I didn't go for this here are that a) whether to do this has been extensively debated here already and b) a lot of people are hinting that an AFD would likely result as "delete". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Amended the close as I had forgotten that we overturn no-consensus speedy deletion reviews. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This article has been in existence for about a decade with no concern by anyone about its worthiness for inclusion. It passed WP:GNG with in-deth significant coverage including a very in-depth article from Glamour[2]. This was a very public example and examination of the "mail order bride" phenomena which explained its importance.
But suddenly this was tagged for speedy deletion saying A7 and the same editor who tagged it deleted it in less than four hours after they placed the tag. I was given notice of the deletion tag as creator in the same amount of time and if I wasn't still a relatively active editor I wouldn't have known about this at all. Speedy deletion, especially in less than four hours of proposal by the same editor, wasn't appropriate particularly when the article already had in-depth coverage linked in the article. If an editor didn't feel the topic was notable the most drastic move here should've been AfD. I notified my challenge to the deleting editor but after two days, a lot more than four hours, there has been no response.Oakshade (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC) EDIT: The tagging editor was not the deleting one. Apologies to both. Oakshade (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - okay, this is a tough one. Autobiographical works (which the Glamour profile sort of is) aren't good for establishing notability. As it stands, I think I'd lean slightly against an A7, but I also find it very hard to condemn it as a wrong choice. I don't think there's any chance at all this would survive an AfD in its current form. I think the wisest course of action would be that if someone wants to make a go of it, let it be userfied to them. Otherwise, restoring for an AfD that would inevitably be fatal seems pretty pointless. WilyD 08:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse List at AfD. I disagree with Wily about this being a tough one. It's an obvious WP:A7 in my eyes. A7 requires that the article, does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, and indeed there was no such indication in the article. I've tempundeleted it. It only states her place of birth, occupation, spouse, that she was a mail-order bride, and the title of a short film she wrote. None of these things indicate why she is important. And, not that it's actually germaine to A7, but the two sources were 1) an article that the subject co-authored, and 2) WP:DAILYMAIL. There's zero chance this would survive AfD. -- RoySmith(talk) 13:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Update: CSD is only for uncontroversial deletions. I still think A7 was perfectly reasonable, but there's enough people here making plausible assertions of notability that this is obviously not as uncontroversial as I thought. So, it should be listed at AfD. -- RoySmith(talk) 14:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Err, read the whole of A7 - it's explicitly a lower standard than Notability. The Glamour source would go a long way (though perhaps not all the way) to establishing notability, except that she co-authored it, which takes a lot of winds out of its sails. (Or conversely, that you're profiled in a significant publication is prima facie evidence of significance/important, and indeed, the only evidence of significance/importance generally accepted on Wikipedia). Otherwise, it's just your subjective judgement of who you personally think is important. The Daily Mail is a) The Daily Mail, and b) a trivial mention, so it's of no consequence here, I agree. WilyD 13:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AfD it, so we can have a proper seven-day discussion and then delete it in the proper way. Considering how well-established it is on Wikipedia that the Daily Mail isn't a reliable source, and having read the other source in detail, I really can't envisage this article surviving a full AfD. But fair process is important in a collaborative project such as this one and so it's right that this editor should be allowed to make their case to the community.—S MarshallT/C 14:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@S Marshall: in what way does this not meet WP:A7? What indication does the article give that this person is important or significant? -- RoySmith(talk) 16:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that a valid way for article-writers to assert someone's notability is by linking the sources that have noted them. (Arguably, that's the only kind of "assertion of notability" that should count at all, but that's a separate debate.) For me, A7 is about stopping you from writing articles about your neighbour or your teacher. In this case there are inline citations to national publications, so for me it's over the bar. I accept that others' mileages vary.—S MarshallT/C 17:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. That's not unreasonable, but I interpret A7 to be talking about what's actually in the article. -- RoySmith(talk) 19:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What's actually in the article is a citation to Glamour magazine, which is an indication of importance/significance by virtue of its coverage of the subject. We should encourage editors to demonstrate potential notability by means of sources, rather than by making outlandlish claims in the text of articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@S Marshall: - regarding an article being "well-established," there is no temporal restriction on CSD#A7. Toddst1 (talk) 06:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say the article is well-established. I said it's well-established on Wikipedia that the Daily Mail is not a reliable source.—S MarshallT/C 08:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It might make sense to read that essay before linking it. It again makes the point the credible claim of significance is a lower standard than notability, not a separate, unrelated standard. The idea we could A7 articles that would be kept at AfD on Notability is fundamentally daft. The whole point of speedy deletion is to delete things where the outcome of a discussion would undoubtably be delete - which isn't the case for things that present evidence they may pass WP:N. WilyD 10:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
List at AfD A7 is intended to be a lower bar than notability, so evidence of notability exempts an article from A7. Furthermore whether something meets notability standards is supposed to be discussed at AfD or PROD instead of being handled through speedy deletion, so articles with something which could plausibly be viewed as evidence of notability shouldn't be deleted under A7 either. I'm not at all sure the Glamour article and Daily Mail article constitute evidence of notability, but I can see someome making a serious argument at AfD that they do, so AfD is where is should go. Hut 8.5 21:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article did not assert importance or significance. Whether it asserted notability is muddier. I'm not at all bothered by judging the Daily Mail source as not even plausibly GNG-qualifying, even in a speedy deletion context. I personally wouldn't take the Glamour source as GNG-qualifying either, especially given the shared byline, but I wouldn't think it unreasonable to do so. (Even though someone who did would be wrong, wrong, absolutely brimming over with wrongability.) So while this wasn't a particularly good speedy, it wasn't a crazy one either; and it should go to AFD now that it's been challenged, without implication of wrongdoing on the part of the deleting admin.Also, the drv nom's assertion that this was tagged A7 and then deleted by the same person is blatantlyfalse. Unimpressive. —Cryptic 01:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledged, noted and apologized in the DRV nom that the article was not deleted by the tagging editor, but in the end that is just a red herring as the deleting editor being different than the tagging one has nothing to do with the inappropriateness of deleting an article with significant coverage by arguably reliable sources already linked in it as well as the film and A7-aversion verbiage of the lede (the topic “revealed that she was a mail order bride”). Oakshade (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn A7 The statement She revealed in 2009 that she was what is commonly known as a mail-order bride. is in my view, a claim of significance whether the article would stand up at an AfD (quite likely not without additional sources, but I haven't done a WP:BEFORE search to see if there are any) is not in the least relevant to whether an article fits A7. Any plausible claim of significance, whether or not supported by sources, any sources at all, is enough that A7 does not apply. Being a modern mail-order bride is unusual enough (or at least sufficiently rarely reported) to be significant. If well supported by sources, it might be sufficient for notability. I wouldn't object if this were drafified, for possible improved sourcing. I do strongly object to speedy deletion here. Since sources are irrelevant to an A7, the quality of the sources currently cite is also irrelevant. One must presume that during an Afd there would be a search for further sources, which might or might not bear fruit. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mail-order bride#Country-specific information has some relevant stats. Even the lowest of them shows that " '{{PAGENAME}} was a mail-order bride' is a claim of significance" is not a reasonable position. —Cryptic 04:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But the claim is not "XXX was a mail-order bride" but rather "XXX revealed that she was a mail-order bride." People in such situations may not be uncommon, but they rarely talk about this to the media, and even more rarely draw any media attention. That is significant. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Send to AfD. Challenged A7s should go to AfD for discussion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Looked at the historical version. Clear WP:A7. Understand the rationale, but sending to AfD would be a clear waste of time. SportingFlyerT·C 12:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (!vote above stands.) A speedy deletion is supposed to be clear cut. If several experienced editors think it should be restored (even to go to AfD) then it isn't clear cut and should be restored, even if others think it was an A7. Note also that there is no bar to recreating a page deleted by speedy -- G4 would not apply. A WP:REFUND request could recreate this as a draft ifd anuyone wnated to work on it, in user space or draft space, or any admin could do so unilaterally. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Send to AfD Challenged SD should go to AfD for discussion. The community can decide. Lightburst (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and send to AfD. The significance/importance bar for CSD A7 is a lower hurdle than notability. While it might not survive AfD, that would give an opportunity for more source searches, and the film is also enough of a claim to survive speedy deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and debate. The film negates the A7 criteria, and so this needs to be sent to AfD instead (as is the case for a failed speedy/PROD). —A little blue Boriv^_^vOnward to 2020 23:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per RoySmith. I disagree also with the view that contested A7s should go to AfD. If you can't make a credible claim of significance in an article you create, then create a new one that has a credible claim in it. That's much easier than a 14-day DRV/AFD circle-jerk at the expense of wikipedia's servers. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The only claim to notability is by inheritance as the mail-order bride of Steve Loeb, who is also not actually notable. Guy (help!) 13:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: No reasonable claim of importance in the article at all. (I'm surprised to he the folks say that since she wrote and directed a film nobody heard of with nobody notable in the cast that she's somehow important.) Beyond that, this deletion review seems like a complete waste of time and creation of drama - note the indignation (and inaccuracies) in the the drv nom. Mkativerata said it well above. However with this goat breeding festival underway, the best course at this point is to userfy the article, let whoever gives a toss improve it and move it back to article space when it has a snowball's chance of survival. Toddst1 (talk) 06:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, but am open to AFD The article had exactly zero claim of significance. The external link section all goes to sites that are usually frowned on here, and two citations to a magazine article a UK internet article do not establish reliable independent third party coverage for a biographical article's sources to the standards set forth by Wikipedia. A check of the google search included in the csd template for admins also fails to ride to the article's rescue here: most celebrates judged significant or notable enough to be on Wikipedia have millions of results, while this girl has just under 700,000 - and when you account for mirrors, repeat coverage, and social media that has little if any place in or on a Wikipedia article that number inevitably shrinks further. Compounding the problem is that she's not in any major movie production, the article states only a "short film" but in a broad sense anything can be considered a "short film" - for example, any of the instructional videos or an audio read thorough of a Wikipedia article could be claimed as "short films". As for being a mail order bride, that sounds like a nice solid foundation for an article to be built on, but she is not the first mail order bride, nor will she be the last, and while it does make her story unique, it fails to establish significance or notability because its not been a major factor in her life's story or life's work to date. As for taking it to afd, I am open to that since it'll will allow the CSD-A7 tag to be switched out for the far more potent CSD-G4 tag. G4 speedy deletion criteria prohibits articles deleted via afd discussion from returning at or anywhere near their form at the time they were axed, so either option is ends with a red link as opposed to an article. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn A7 and send to AfD. There are claims within the article that the subject is a "writer, producer and film maker" and "mail order bride". Both of these claims are supported by sources. As such we cannot decide just by looking at the article if the subject is or is not notable, but there is enough information there for the matter to be debatable. We have articles on writers, on producers, and on film-makers. Mail-order bride is a notable topic, and that there is a credible claim supported by a reliable source that this person may be a notable mail-order bride then A7 can't apply. The dubious nature of this (and why it needs discussing at AfD) is that one of the sources is the Daily Mail, a depreciated source. But that the Daily Mail has coverage supporting the claim that the subject is indeed a "writer, producer and film maker", then it is plausible that other sources may also exist. The other source is fine - it is an in-depth interview written by a notable writer, Jessica Pilot, and published in a notable magazine, Glamour (magazine). The style of the interview article is to present it as though the subject is talking directly to the reader, and this may have misled others to think it is purely autobiographical. But the by-line at the top indicates that Jessica Pilot is the author (or ghost-writer). By itself the one source supporting a claim of mail-order bride notability is not quite enough, but the length of the piece, and that it was written by a notable author, gives plausible reasons for thinking there may be other sources covering this, so an AfD is appropriate. SilkTork (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The citation to Glamour magazine in the article is enough to overturn speedy deletion. Arguments in a possible AfD would condider sources such as this published by the NYU Press and these from academic publishers, but that would require overturning of the speedy deletion first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Bridger (talk • contribs)
Endorse A7 – no credible claim of significance or importance is made in the article. Being a mail-order bride is not a claim of significance or importance, anymore than being a plumber is, or being a mathematician, or being left-handed, or being a virgin. There are lots of mail-order brides; there's nothing significant or important about them. That "mail order bride" is a notable topic doesn't mean that individual mail order brides are notable because of it (or the lower bar of "significant" or "important"). Same with being a writer, producer, filmmaker... there are millions of people that can make that claim. A filmmaker who lived in 1919 might be making a claim of significance or importance – back when that was a rare profession requiring specialized knowledge – but not in 2019. Every teenager is a filmmaker these days. If her article claimed that she had won an award, or her films were screened somewhere significant, or that she was the first mail-order bride, or the most expensive mail order bride... but just listing essentially her occupation and background doesn't get past A7. (And it doesn't matter if her husband is or isn't notable, because notability isn't inherited. "I'm so-and-so's wife" is never a credible claim of significance or importance. Unless maybe "so-and-so" is, like, the Pope.) – Levivich 17:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
