Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 July 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2009 July 15
2009 July 17 >

16 July 2009[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Children of Michael Jackson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deleted per WP:NOTE and WP:BLP. Here are two sources for the NOTE issue.[1][2] As you can imagine, there are thousands of news sources that discuss them to greater and lesser degrees over the past 10 or so years (the article had about 25 by the time it was deleted). It didn't violate BLP, and that would have been a reason to fix it and not delete it, anyways. Basically people had a gut feeling about the article, and didn't really care if it conflicts with our guidelines and policies. I think if we base our decision on our rules, it should not be deleted. Also, there were a lot of merge !votes as well as deletes. Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing admin: This was generally a case of a large mass of coverage that pretty much solely covered the children in the context of their father and his death; which many felt resulted in the article merely reflecting inherited notability. Neither side any kind of monopoly on poorly-reasoned arguments; in the end I felt the overall consensus leaned distinctly towards removing this content and in the case of particularly sensitive BLPs of children I felt my close was also the prudent option. ~ mazca talk 19:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The coverage has spanned over ten years. People in the AfD said NOTINHERITED, and basically ignored the duration of coverage. I think a lot of them thought NOTINHERITED is meant in a family sense, which it isn't. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - we base our deletions on consensus, and the consensus was to delete in this case. Since DRV is to argue the procedure and not reargue the AfD, the consensus is what matters here. For disclosure, I was the nominating editor. Fritzpoll (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There were no procedural problems with the close, and the WP:BLP concerns were very real. Unitanode 19:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This reminds me of the AfD. People said delete per BLP, without explaining how that works. BLP doesn't support it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read this, as there couldn't be a more clear example of it. Unitanode 19:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - consensus was clear. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It may be pointless to ask, but can an endorser address how the sources do not meet notability, now the duration of coverage does not meet NOTINHERITED, and how BLP says this should be deleted? This is the same thing that happened at the AfD. People cite policies, but have never shown how those policies actually apply. It's probably in your best interests to just pile on a never speak of how policies apply, I guess. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PF, please stop rehashing the AFD issues. You think one thing. A whole LOT of people feel differently than you. Procedurally, this close was on the money. Please focus on areas of how this was procedurally done, or simply withdraw the DRV, as you've raised no questions about the procedure followed during this close. My arguments were made at the AFD, and I won't make them again here. Unitanode 20:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take that as a no. As the below commenter mentions, as well as at least one of the deletes in the AfD, they are notable. I guess we'll just call every delete an WP:IAR delete. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PF, I'm basing my judgment on the AFD discussion only. DRV is not the place to argue about sources. My endorsement of the closure doesn't necessarily represent my (or anyone else's viewpoint) on whether the conensus was correct or not, but rather on what the outcome of the concensus was. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 21:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. This ridiculously large discussion had two substantial rationales for deletion - lack of independent notability, and BLP. While I agree with PF's reading of notability here, the guideline certainly is amorphous enough to support the argument that there is only derivative notability here. I'm more sympathetic to the BLP concerns, although I agree that they are more prospective in nature than the result of any demonstrated problem. Still, the discussion here was quite thorough, and I don't think that this is situation where one side is working so outside of policy that its position can be given substantially less weight. The closer here accurately discerned that on balance, the consensus was to delete. Would that all our discussions benefit from many pairs of eyes. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 20:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an interesting one. The consensus was delete, but I agree with Xymmax that WP:N doesn't actually support that outcome. I don't think BLP does, either; BLP concerns might be a reason to fix the article, or even edit-protect it, but I don't see that they lead to a need to delete it.

    Still. Where consensus collides with the rules, consensus should prevail, so I endorse this accurate close.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse as a reasonable admin closure. From my perspective, the arguments for deletion seem to outweigh the reasons for keeping; even though it's not a strong consensus, I'm afraid the BLP concerns raised bring it over the top. MuZemike 21:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Good close. There were good explanations in the delete rationales for why BLP applied so I'm slightly concerned the nominator doesn't understand how BLP applied. I understand they might not agree but the reasoning was provided and was clearly compelling. Spartaz Humbug! 21:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Thoroughly debated at AfD. Even if WP:BLP isn't written clearly enough, deciding to delete and keep deleted this subject is the right thing to do and we should not be embarrassed to make decisions reflecting morality. No information will be lost to humanity if we don't cover these people now. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question what is the part of BLP that applies? There's the "Presumption in favor of privacy" section, which sounds like it might support deletion, but nothing in it really does. It has lots of advice about how the article should be written, and that advice was heeded. WP:BLP1E sounds kinda close (forgetting the years of coverage), but it recommends a merge. Maybe I'm missing something. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know if I have the answer you're looking for, but there is much more potential for harm to living persons wrt articles like this, especially when content-forked as it what it looked like happened. Information on BLPs are to be taken much more seriously and consequently with much more care. While the mantra when in doubt, don't delete is a useful watch-word wrt deletion/XFDs, that does not necessarily apply to biographies of living persons, where said persons are entitled to protection from harmful, unsourced/unverifiable information. We cannot sit back on a BLP and say, 'this will eventually get cleaned up, so don't delete it', it's got to be done right. Hence, the extra care needed. Many users I think have this in mind during this DRV. That's my take. MuZemike 23:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Peregrine,s question should be: How can WP:BLP be revised to better explain what was done here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's answers my question. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close - a perfectly valid weighing of strength of arguments. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I agree fully with the argument that notability is not inherited. --BlueSquadronRaven 06:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, consensus looks fine to me. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as a good close based on the arguments put forward, with no apparent procedural errors (and none raised by the editor who initiated this discussion). Hut 8.5 12:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and hoping Michael Jackson's health and appearance‎ and Records and achievements of Michael Jackson‎ are the next MJ related articles to meet similar fate. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 13:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (from author) due to lack of time to refute WP:BLP concerns. I had thought a due process would be to wait (at least) 2 days to see if anyone had time to refute the final 5 fears about BLP hacking. Those issues went completely unopposed in the final minutes before deletion. Perhaps others (seeing my "recap subsections") thought I had time (everyday) to refute the next set of debate points; however, I spent my time expanding the article (not the debate) to explain Grace Rwaramba was the 12-year nanny from Uganda (college in U.S.) helping MJ+children (and I wanted to add they called her "Mum", him "Daddy" but couldn't find 2nd source). So, meanwhile as I'm expanding the article with double-sourced facts, the AfD is seen as unrefuted and closed.
    Again, I say "Overturn" due to a lack of time (such as 2 days) to refute final arguments. However, I also fear the BLP hacking and think "un-deletion" should discuss pre-protecting article immediately before restoring to public view: someone had already quipped "custody will go to Octomom(!)" and another moved/renamed the article to title "Children of Debbie Rowe" thinking they "aren't really" MJ children, despite birth-certificates signed by MJ. This situation is a policy loophole in Wikipedia: why doesn't a large article get split into subarticles with automatically the same protection: instead, each attempt to expand in subarticles is exposed to endless vandalism seen by "65,000" pageviews per day until embarrassing vandalism is proven to offend readers/children in mourning. When delaying typical article protection, no wonder there were so many BLP concerns. So, please discuss protection before un-deleting, per lack of time to refute ending arguments. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse close I'm not sure I would have favored deletion if I had seen this discussion while it occurred, but the consensus for deletion is pretty clear. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as the only reasonable option. Accurate and well-informed closure. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. This whole thing was a flurry of WP:RECENTISM and the BLP concerns outweighed that. Always error to the side of caution with BLP, especially with minors. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn #2 (from author) due to closure outside scope of AfD. When readers were asked to consider the AfD, the scope involved 2 issues: notability of article's topic, and WP:ONEEVENT. However, once those issues were refuted, rather than stop the AfD, the debate became (surprise!) WP:BLP, without amending the top reasons for deletion. Once deleted, the reasoning stated "particularly sensitive BLPs of children" which had not been fairly indicated, at the top of AfD, as a major issue to discuss or refute. That's changing the rules of the game in mid-stream, and hence, people were left unprepared for what spurious argument to debate next. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn #3 (from author) due to new user(s) saying "Delete". When a new user (with red-linked name) "tilts the consensus" to deletion, as the main contributions of a 4-edit user, then that's highly questionable. If at trial, a police officer were found to have falsified evidence, then I think a cloud of suspicion would be cast on all evidence; a recess (delay) would be in order, to re-examine the events: there is a difference between consensus and canvassing. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn #4 (from author) due to arguing from false premises. The AfD was initiated by claiming: notability of an article's topic is NEVER inherited, and a WP:ONEEVENT would NEVER support a separate article. However, when considering the topic of the White Star Line, there were 2 sister ships (nearly identical) which were the new babies of the famous shipping line: S.S. Olympic (1910) & S.S. Titanic (1912). Well, notability (of the shipping line) is not inherited, so forget those babies, they don't count, no matter how rare. The Olympic sailed a while and had a minor wreck, but was repaired. Then the R.M.S. Titanic sank, but that was just a WP:ONEEVENT. Case closed: not even notable enough for "Sister ships of White Star". In reality, because they had been sister-ships, the S.S. Olympic was later used to demonstrate turning tests of how the Titanic could have been steered to avoid an iceberg (conclusion: don't put engines in reverse when steering forward). Anyway, it is well-known in sentential logic, that if the premises of an argument are false, then anything can be proven, like "white is not white" or "black is white" or "this article should be deleted". Hence, it is completely unacceptable to claim such a debate, based on false premises, which are guaranteed to support the unavoidable deletion. The AfD must be rejected due to those false premises which created a systemic bias, highly likely to result in deletion. Next time, note: a WP:ONEEVENT must be like a worldwide event, like some big ship dies (or similar) to support notability of those involved, such as a group of survivors or those who diagnosed the dangers (Frederick Fleet, crewman who sighted the iceberg). Hence, notability can be derived from a single event. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn #5 (from author) due to new DRA-profiling of the evidence. The article had been convicted of the "crime" of BLP-childrisk and sentenced to deletion. However, other culprits can be revealed once the evidence is re-examined, using DRA-profiling, for dangerous risk activities (DRA), in use at the time. Specifically, the debated problem of BLP-childrisk (for minors) can be traced to other suspects:
  • the practice of not protecting the article against IP edits increases the likelihood of risky text (nearly 90% of hacked edits can be traced to IP-address users).
  • the practice of not posting warnings (of risk) could be seen as neglect in not alerting others to child-protection issues.
  • the practice of not posting a typical legal notice could be seen as contributing to dangers in child-protection issues.
Once the evidence is re-examined, then the article can be proven to be not guilty of BLP-childrisk, since small children are also described in other articles, such as in "Brad Pitt#Children" and "Tom Cruise". -Wikid77 (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reminder: I have given 5 reasons (above) to overturn the decision, and allow a re-trial or re-AfD. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You really must stop this textwalling, Wikid. It accomplishes nothing, as this is not AFD2, and is actually counterproductive. Unitanode 13:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My responses above were not "AFD2" nor "textwalling" but, rather, 5 separate, detailed motions to overturn the ruling of the AfD. In reality, legal debates require a lot of written text (not "textwalling"), and for that reason, the practice has been known (for many decades) as the "paper chase". So, be prepared to see a lot more text, in the future, when resolving these motions to overturn, or when debating an original AfD. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You are truly doing yourself no favors with your attitude towards -- and apparent misunderstanding of -- the processes involved in Wikipedia. I won't be responding to your textwalling ("paper chase", whatever) any further. Unitanode 20:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only problem with that is that the Afd closure isn't a ruling by a judge, it's a reading of consensus by an admin. DRV isn't a legal venue for "motions", it's a place to highlight issues with the deletion process. If you want to play at being a lawyer, that's fine, but this isn't a legal process and so treating it as one isn't going to benefit you in anyway. Volume of argument isn't important, quality is. The volume of argument can of course obscure the quality. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it most certainly is a ruling by a judge, who happens to be an admin judging the AfD. And it certainly is a venue for "motions" which define causes to overturn the ruling, based on problems of procedure. Plus, using a similar analogy to a legal court, has revealed to me the problems of viewing canvassing or sockpuppets as a form of "consensus" where Truth is defined by a popularity contest. So, it is of enormous benefit to me that no one thinks that's a problem: I think I can see why 98% of users quit Wikipedia within 1 month. So much is just a waste of time. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have an accusation of sockpuppetry, make it in the appropriate venue, not here. If you don't, then you should strike your accusations straightaway. Unitanode 04:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said if you want to play at being lawyer that's fine, it really won't do you any good though, so please believe what you want to believe. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure: In fact, contrary to the closing summary, I think the weight of the AfD did indicate notability, but it also raise serious BLP issues, and it was quite correct to close to delete on that basis. — Charles Stewart (talk) 20:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wikipedia is not a court of law. Stifle (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closure I might well have voted to keep, and I can't understand why the option of merge was not considered, but consensus needs to be respected. There is no evidence that there is anything out of process here. Alansohn (talk) 04:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, I see nothing out of process about this AfD. DRV is not AfD 2.0 and all that, the simple fact is that being of the opinion that the AfD result was "wrong" is not grounds for AfD. The discussion of whether an in-process AfD can actually be wrong is left for another time. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 09:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Competition 10 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I don't quite agree that this was closed properly. It's true that very few people cared to comment over a very long period (two weeks). But two users did vote "delete", and the one "merge" voter did comment that there was "insufficient notability for independent article". I understand that in cases of no consensus, we default to keep. But with two participants supporting deletion and one at least leaning in that direction, it does seem, based on the limited sample size, that deletion was the preferred outcome. Plus, the strength of argument clearly lay with the "delete" side, I would contend. Biruitorul Talk 17:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • On reviewing the debate, I agree that Dragos muresan's keep argument was successfully refuted. However, ChildofMidnight's merge argument was not, and it should stand with full weight. The nominator's delete argument should also receive full weight. Cybercobra's contribution did not really add anything, being basically a "per nom" combined with a statement of the blindingly obvious.

    It's important to remember that "merge" is a "keep" outcome. Contrary to the nominator, ChildofMidnight's words do not support deletion.

    Overall, I think the debate did not reach rough consensus, so I endorse User:Nja247#s accurate close.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak endorse. There wasn't really a consensus to delete, although it could have been closed otherwise. Stifle (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the no consensus close. The default position is keep, as you've noted, and I'm not seeing a rough consensus here to remove this article. I suspect that I would have closed this AfD the same way, although truthfully, I probably would have simply !voted delete instead of closing. Still, in a case like this there is nothing unreasonable in wanting a stronger showing of consensus before whipping out the eraser. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 18:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as no consensus for deletion has been established. MuZemike 21:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Good close. This one had a special claim to notability, no serious allegation of spam, so give it 12 months before considering relisting at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no consensus to delete. It looks like a very weak consensus to merge (counting the deletes as "no standalone article"), but no consensus is fine. Note that normal editing is not precluded by this closure, but it would be polite to discuss first. Flatscan (talk) 03:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as a reasonable close. There was simply insufficient participation to get a solid consensus either way; and it had been relisted quite enough times. No consensus leaves it open to renominate in future and hopefully get a meaningful consensus to do something with the article. Simply merging it is also not precluded. ~ mazca talk 09:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as a valid close. Mazca hit the proverbial nail on the head. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: per S Marshall, the merge case was not refuted. Be WP:BOLD and merge it. — Charles Stewart (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever, go ahead and merge it. I think Nja's close was odd, I'm not saying a "delete" was motivated but a mention of the possibility of a merge would not have gone amiss. Many AfDs are closed with this amount of participation and we simply can't aribitrarily decide that we need to have five editors participating as it would cripple AfD (not to speak of CfD, RfD and TfD). Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 09:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

AFD = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Franco_%22El_Gorila%22

Hello everybody,

I just wanted to say that I've rewritten the article about this artist. User Wknight94 who deleted the former article advised me, to create the new one in the user space first and then request in here if the old one could be replaced by the one I've written. This is the link to the user page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:79.206.212.76/Franco_%22El_Gorila%22

--Descará (talk) 16:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • You now need to explicitly provide your sources for the article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Francine Dee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

Hello, why was Francine Dee deleted?

I am the webmaster at her site, and do not understand why this was taken down....

It got plenty of traffic, ( do a search on Google.com, she still has one of the most popular names in the Asian modeling community. )

She is a Icon in Asian modeling scene and Queen of the Import car scene, With the longest running and active website of it's type with over 10 years of updates!

I will maintain the page, if allowed, It was not updated in a Very long time, due to I was told I was not a relyable source of Info for her ( kind of strange ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by MorphiousDG (talk • contribs) 13:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

  • It was deleted per consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francine Dee. It was determined that she was not yet notable enough to be on Wikipedia. See WP:N for info on notability. (X! · talk) · @958 · 21:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


Yes I read that. But Did you not read my rebuttals to that above? What about models like Luana Lani ( not even a pic ), Christine Mendoza, Masuimi Max, all with 1/100th the amount of work and popularity of Francine? All of these and MANY other models are in this industry because of the work of Francine......

So I would Really like to get this page back up, or you might as well go and delete all the other models out there as well! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.146.249 (talk) 01:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Here are the results from Google - Results 1 - 10 of about 787,000 for "Francine Dee". Is this enough pages to be worthy of Wikipedia? ( compare this to some of the other names as well as some of the other people in here.... ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.146.249 (talk) 13:32, 10 July 2009

The above is copied from X!'s user talk page. To address the concerns above, please understand that notability is not Google results. You'll need to demonstrate that there are reliable sources written about Mrs. Dee. As far as the AfD goes, endorse as the only possible closure. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per the unanimous AFD. DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 18:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://francinedee.com/tear_sheet.php is this a good start? There are more in the last 2 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.146.249 (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really Weak system, so two people can say to delete something and that constitutes a "consensus"? Sounds like two people just did not want this type of content on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.100.77 (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, four. Besides, can you think of anything better? MuZemike 17:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Five including the nominator, six given the Admin chose to delete rather than voice an opinion. It's one of these self limiting systems. Plenty of people will have seen the AfD with the delete comments and chosen not to comment. When unambiguous discussions come up they generally pull relatively little participation while more controversial discussions attract more. While this looks at first glance like it would be exploitable by such techniques as ballot stuffing, we have checks and limitations. I feel the system works relatively well and like MuZemike said, what would work better? Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 09:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admins are supposed to read consensus, close AFDs, and delete according to what said consensus states. They are not supposed to !vote in their closes. MuZemike 18:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Andre Merritt – no action taken. I am willing to provide a userfied copy of the deleted material upon request, but as no sourcing/information was provided here, the mainspace article will remain deleted – Shereth 16:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Andre Merritt (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

AFD = Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andre Merritt Speedy Deletion 75.27.151.59 (talk) 04:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need to delete. He has written, Disturbia for Rihanna. Forever for Chris Brown. Entourage for Omarion. Helped produced SEVERAL albums. Is signed as a songwriter to Universal Music Group. Look it up on their website! Also there is www.andremerritt.com HE IS ALSO involved in a songwriting crew called the GRAFFITI ARTISTZ which contains him, Chris Brown, and Robert Allen. He has MADE IT BIG.

  • Close - There is no need for a DRV for a speedy deletion. If he has "made it big" then there should be no end of independent reliable sources that attest to it. If you wish, you may write an article that relies on those sources. Note that neither Universal Music Group's website nor Merritt's personal website constitute reliable sources, which must be independent of the article's subject. Otto4711 (talk) 04:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last deletion was a G4 after an AFD so I'd say that a DRV might be necessary Otto. I linked the AFD up top. 75.27.151.59, please can you read our notability guideline and our sourcing guidelines and let us know if you can find a couple of reliable sources that discuss this person in depth. If you can then we will happily do something about this deletion. Spartaz Humbug! 06:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the previous DRV AFD, I still think this can be closed but if not then endorse the unanimous deletion. Otto4711 (talk) 07:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, i can't find a previous DRV Otto. Can you help me with a link to it please? Spartaz Humbug! 07:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may be starting to sound like a broken record, but I suggest a WP:USERSPACE draft. I'm sure one of many admins active in DRV would be happy to recreate the deleted article in userspace for that reason. Do ensure however that the article demonstrates (not just that the subject meets) verifiable notability with reliable sources before moving it to mainspace or it may well be deleted again very quickly. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 07:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As long as the claims above are verified properly I see no reason why this article shouldn't be recreated. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit re-creation probably in user space It is not just reasonable but necessary to ask for a restoration of a speedied article here, if there's been a G4 after an AfD--otherwise it will just get deleted again. DGG (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2009 (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/2009_July_16&oldid=1142605076"