- Alexis Grace (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
I would like you to restore the article Alexis Grace based on the discussions here Talk:American_Idol_(season_8)#Alexis Grace contestant page deletion. and here User talk:Fritzpoll#Alexis Grace. and here User talk:Fritzpoll#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Grace (2nd nomination). and here User talk:Jauerback#Alexis Grace. Thank you. 23prootie (talk) 04:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion per the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Grace (2nd nomination). No indication has been presented as to how the deletion process was not correctly followed. Note: this was at DRV on February 28th where the snow keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Grace was overturned. Fritzpoll's closure was correct. The nomination may misleadingly suggest that users are in general agreement that the article should be restored and this is a mere procedural rubber-stamping step, but this is not the case. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Undelete. Gross mis-application of ONEEVENT. Most importantly, suitable sources exist, starting with http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2009/feb/16/14idolweb/. There are no apparent grounds for BLP concerns. A season on american idol is not *one* event, but a season of events. Starring as a finalist on american idol is far beyond a mere "event". AfD1 and AfD2 are at extreme odds, and AfD looks more like a "no consensus", with the closer opining on policy (erroneously at least in part, WP:BIO is NOT policy), and without reference to the most important thing that guides our editing - the sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Request: Aspects (talk · contribs) has requested that this article be userfied (the request was made at yesterday's DRV). I am merging it with this request as it will be moot if this DRV undeletes the article. If it does not, the closing admin should consider the userfication request. Stifle (talk) 11:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Undelete history, retain redirect While it is perfectly acceptable and in fact common practice to redirect talent show contestants that haven't done anything outside the show, deleting the history was entirely unneccesary and only makes it harder to create a proper article in the event she does expand beyond the show. If repeated recreation is an issue, the redirect can be protected. - Mgm|(talk) 13:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural question—Are we evaluating the totality of the discussions on this, or only the close of this particular AfD?—I think Fritzpoll's close was a correct reading of the consensus if we're taking into account all the relevant discussions (including particularly the 28th February DRV where good points were raised). I think it was not a correct reading of the consensus if we're only taking into account the second AfD. My preferred outcome is the one Mgm suggests.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 13:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose undeletion many anon users would recreate the article, in fact it is create protection. --ApprenticeFan Messages Work 14:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment American Idol contestant pages tend to be stable. The only thing that struck a nerve was deleting the article.--23prootie (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Anon users can't create articles. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion, Fritzpoll has explained his closure of the AfD in a satisfactory way. The basic premise stands that a wikiproject cannot declare guidelines as overruling BLP policy, if there is going to be an exception to the BLP1E policy for American Idol contestants that needs to be discussed at WT:BLP specified in the policy itself. I don't object to an undeletion of the history, my only concern with that suggestion is that this might invite to 3RV wars. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 15:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is the beauty of the article being create protected. No warring. Regular editors can't edit without first discussing it and admins stupid enough to wheelwar are easily dealt with. - Mgm|(talk) 22:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm only seeing one reference to BLP1E in the AfD on the delete side. I agree with your conclusion that wikiprojects don't set inclusion guidelines. But I think there were plenty of arguments about why this wasn't BLP1E that were never seriously addressed (1 event over 6 months seems to stretch the definition of 1 event). As discussed in the AfD that would eliminate a large number of professional athletes we otherwise include. Hobit (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "If the event is significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article for the person is sometimes appropriate. :Individuals notable for well-documented historic events, for example John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category."
I do believe that Alexis fulfills this criteria given that she is one of the front-runners currently still in the competition in a television show spanning more or less six months watched by at least 20 million people internationally, if the President of Malta has his own article then why not her. (likewise if some Prime Ministers of Italy, like Tommaso Tittoni, Luigi Facta, and Fernando Tambroni, have their own articles despite serving only a few months then why not her)--23prootie (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn I looked at the AFD and I don't see anything resembling a consensus for deletion. I respect that the closing admin weighted the arguments and saw delete as more compelling, but at minimum the AFD should have been relisted for additional comment. Townlake (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The relist policy doesn't permit relisting discussions with more than one or two contibutors. Stifle (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It should if discounting votes during your closure would leave you without any reasonable policy based comments. Also, if there are few comments, 1 votes can make a lot of difference to the outcome. It's quite reasonable to relist if the position isn't abundantly clear or if counting of the votes (after evaluation) doesn't give a clear consensus (and if the consensus is likely to change with additional comments) - Mgm|(talk) 12:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Back to my procedural question again, then. There have been a lot more than two contributors to the discussion if we include the first AFD and the Feb 28th DRV.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 13:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Stifle - your central point is well taken, though (as you know) policies and guidelines aren't the same thing. Townlake (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Undelete The first AFD was overwellingly to keep. So someone wasn't happy and forum shopped for a different result. I don't think that is how it is suppose to work.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Deletion and endorse Fritzpoll's reasoning in closing the discussion as Delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Endorse Deletion as in-process and warranted. Eusebeus (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn to no consensous' Really a crazy situation. As described above, this isn't anything close to a ONEEVENT situation. One event doesn't happen over a period of months. Otherwise a whole lot of bands would be ONEEVENT as they are only being covered/reviewed for a single "hot" song and then fade away. IMO this is a case of TOOMAINSTREAMFORMYTASTES.Hobit (talk) 13:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Further, let me say "per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz" as I think those comments do a better job of saying what I was trying to say. Hobit (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This discussion pretty much moots the deletion of this article.--23prootie (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If it matters, I'll be happy to take the article as a Userfy, and improve it according to any instructions the closing admin chooses to leave. (I can't see the article so I don't know if it was just poorly V/RS'd.) But yeah, with that all-contestants bundle-keep, it seems strange to have this singular deletion stand. Townlake (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion well reasoned close by the closer; no wikiproject can make notable that which the community as a whole considers otherwise, lest we have WikiProject Telephone Book determining that having a listing in a telephone directory makes you notable or other shenanigans. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the closes mentioned by 23prootie do seem to indicate that we have a general sense of notability about these people. It would be very odd to claim that all of them have notability but this one doesn't. Hobit (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That gets into an other stuff exists argument. At this point I'd rather concentrate on reintroducing a good article on this subject instead of just saying she gets one because everyone else did. It's a kinda bureaucratic point, but we have to be careful with BLPs; they really do merit individual consideration (as is alluded to in today's bundle keep). Townlake (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed on all points. But that said, if we chose to keep 7 of one type of article, we should have good reason not to keep the 8th. It's not that other stuff exists, it's that other AfD discussions in the last few days lead to a different conclusion with (in many cases) the exact same arguments. Hobit (talk) 02:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Undelete. Closer inappropriately discounted the comments of several editors, myself included, who pointed out amount of 3d-party press coverage which would be sufficient in almost any other context. Closer gave inappropriate weight to several editors' comments who only objected to Wikiproject criteria and made no effort to address compliance with GNG. Closer inappropriately discounted opinions of those who disagree with his reading of BLP1E -- it is one thing to discount comments not based on policy. But it is wrong to discount votes based on a reasonable policy interpretation held by many editors just because the closer has a different one. BLP1E is being turned into BLPIDONTLIKETHIS. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Very well said on all points. Hobit (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn - Per WP:BEFORE, obvious redirects and/or merge candidates should be discussed on the article's page. With the protected redirect in place, it is not possible to evaluate the former article on its merits. Repeatedly bringing articles like this to AFD when the search term is so obvious and WP:BEFORE is so clear amounts to forum shopping and should not be encouraged. Neier (talk) 23:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As a further aside, WP:BLPDEL specifically says that Page deletion should be treated as a last resort, with the page being improved and remedied where possible and disputed areas discussed.. There are other tools in the box besides AFD; and perhaps it is time we started to use them the way they were meant to be used. Neier (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. I'm definitely not seeing a consensus to delete here. The closing admin discounted two keep arguments as being based only on precedent, but more worrying are the delete/redirect !votes which completely fail to address what is important. Many people in this DRV/AfD cycle want to make the point (note, not the WP:POINT) that the guidelines of individual projects should not set a standard of notability that is incompatible with what we generally accept. This is a valid and important point, and has been well made at the DRV. However those obsessed with hammering home this point fail to account for the fact that this article may well be notable anyway, by any of our criteria. Evidence of this (in the form of significant media coverage) has been presented by those !voting to keep, and as far as I can see has not been refuted. the wub
- Comment The comment was made that the keep !votes were poor. The delete !votes arguments seemed to be non-existent.
- Adam Zel argues that a wikiproject's guidelines can't overcome WP:N. Certainly. But that's not a reason to delete. One could read a belief that WP:N isn't met, but that just plainly isn't true given the scads of news stories on the topic and cited in the article.
- FreeRangeFrog says "If the person fails WP:BIO and/or WP:CREATIVE then the article must go." When asked how it is this person doesn't meet WP:BIO there was no response. Again, as WP:BIO defers to WP:N, I'm unsure how this isn't met.
- Black Kite refers back to the DrV. But that was mostly about the issue of wikiproject guidelines as a reason to keep something. Perhaps he meant something else, but I'm unsure what.
- Ejfetters provided no argument.
- Eluchil404 argues one event quite well, but uses such a broad definition that (s)he agrees the definition used would put most professional athletes without an article.
- So I see one ONEVENT argument and 2-3 that seem to be referring to WP:N without being clear how exactly the dozens of sources on this topic don't meet WP:N. The closer concludes that WP:BIO can't be overridden by local guidelines. But there was no real argument, after the DrV, that it could. Rather the question is if WP:BIO is met. No one put forward any argument about why it isn't either in this AfD or in the last one as far as I can tell. So while the closer reaches a valid conclusion based on this discussion and the DrV (local guidelines don't override WP:BIO) he doesn't explain why WP:BIO isn't met nor does anyone else. Hobit (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the face of little clear explanation about why this should be deleted (other than Eluchil404) I'm unsure how the keep !votes could be anything other than "meets notability guidelines for an article". Hobit (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Temporarily un-retiring to say that this needs to be undeleted. The closing admin substituted his own interpretation of ONEEVENT for the previous consensus established at AFD#1, which was overwhelmingly in favor of keeping it. ONEEVENT isn't some draconian policy to be wielded by deletionists looking to get rid of articles they don't like very much. H2O Shipper 02:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
