- Michelle Belanger (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The deletion of this article makes no sense whatsoever. We can never accept this deletion. Michelle Belanger is the most famous vampire in the world and a huge author. She has books, she goes on tv, what else can you ask for? This article deserves to be on wikipedia, only makes wikipedia a better place for all of the VC. Michelle Belanger is the leader of the vampires in United States. She created our community and gave us hope. We can add many references to her great books. Just please bring her article back. Kheperu (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy The AfD is clearly a delete. That said, I'm finding a news article mostly about her [1], news articles that quote her in the Washington Post [2] and Chicago Tribune, books by a real (though specialized) publisher, apparently been on Hanity's show [3]. The enc. dramatica article certainly makes an interesting read ED/Michelle_Belanger. Ignoring the ED article for a second, I have to imagine this person is notable. Scary maybe, but notable. That said, given the problems that apparently plagued the last article and the AfD result, I'd strongly push for a userfied article first that needs to come to DrV before being put in mainspace. Hobit (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We? I hope you are referring to the WP community, because the vampire community does not own the article. With that said and given the AFD discussion, along with the chief reason for deletion being because it was used for promotion, at the least allow recreation provided the article can be rewritten in an encyclopedic manner. I don't know the deleted version, so I don't know what userfication will accomplish. MuZemike 01:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also endorse deletion as a proper AFD close. In light of the developments going on, I am now squarely against userfication. If someone wants to recreate it, it can be using reliable secondary sources and an encyclopedic tone. MuZemike 01:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- allow recreation preferably in userspace first. Fair disclosure: When I first saw the DRV nomination my first thought was "Is she a character in Twilight?" The individual does seem to have reliable sources such as those produced by Hobit above. But given the previous problems with this article and the apparent drama associated with the subject matter it probably makes sense to make a draft in userspace first. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was the admin that closed the AFD. I have userfied the article Michelle Belanger to User:Kheperu/Michelle Belanger. It can be worked on there until it has been been sourced appropriately, though there does not seem to be much coverage in WP:RS sources [4] to satisfy WP:NOTE. Cirt (talk) 07:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on account that started this DRV - I find it highly odd that the first and only action of this supposedly new account Kheperu (talk · contribs) on Wikipedia is to start this DRV - note that "House Kheperu" is the name of the organization led by Michelle Belanger, and the website www.kheperu.org - so as such I have reported this user account to WP:UAA [5]. Cirt (talk) 07:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 08:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I note that the nominator has been blocked and cannot respond to this query. I would endorse deletion as no faults in the deletion process have been indicated. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion (at this time) I am severely concerned with the number of SPAs and sockpuppets involved in arguing for and against the subject. The nominator's first edit, for instance, was to initiate this DRV because "Michelle Belanger must be undeleted." This approach implies a clear conflict of interest on the part of the account holder. I would not oppose the creation of a neutral, properly sourced article created by an indifferent party, but I fear that allowing re-creation at this time will produce either an advertisement for Belanger's work or a platform for sockpuppets to launch libelous allegations against her. The potential for BLP concerns overwhelms any necessity to maintain a borderline-notable article. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 09:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually on second thought, I agree with Anetode (talk · contribs), and deleted the userfied page. No objection to another admin doing that - but it's best to let this DRV discussion play out first. Cirt (talk) 12:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think userying to somewhere and requiring the article come to DrV before hitting mainspace is the way to address all these issues. I worry about creating a drama magnet of a BLP, but I think there is enough notability we really should have an article. Hobit (talk) 12:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I won't really object if another admin does that - but the prior version of the article wasn't in that great shape. Anetode (talk · contribs) brings up a good point about it being a NPOV hotspot on both sides, as well as possible issues of conflict of interest. If a noninterested party at some point in the future could create a version in their userspace that is properly sourced, and satisfies WP:NOTE, then it could be discussed again at DRV at that point. Cirt (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion - The deletion made perfect sense. Per the AFD and based on our policies, the article should have been deleted. If userfied, it should be into the space of a neutral editor who will write an NPOV article, not into that of a SPA. لennavecia 13:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: The account Kheperu (talk · contribs) has been blocked, essentially as a role account. See comment by one admin [6], and block by another [7]. Cirt (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion--given the AfD I see no reason to reverse that decision. But like Jennavecia and others, I see no problem with an article being started from scratch. The two first links Hobit found are a good start, though I doubt they're sufficient. Drmies (talk) 05:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - close was perfectly ok. Agree with comments by Anetode concerning the reasoning for an overturn. PhilKnight (talk) 16:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Dracula if the nominator is correct that this is the "most famous vampire in the world" --NE2 10:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|