- Thomas Howes (actor) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
I made a new article for Thomas Howes (actor) following a redlink in Downton Abbey. I saw there had previously been an article and I checked via google the cached one which was a one liner plus a little box. My new article, which I discussed without success with two of the three previously deleting admins, seemed to me a substantially different and superior article with sufficient information and referencing to have some possibility of being acceptable and passing an Afd. I uploaded my page only for it to be deleted almost straight away before I had a chance to add comments to the new article's talk page explaining the articles situation. G4 speedy deletion was used to delete it and my understanding - after reading the following:
- If you do decide to recreate it, pay careful attention to the reasons that were proffered for deletion. Overcome the objections, and show that your new, improved work meets Wikipedia article policies. It can help to write down the reasons you think the article belongs on Wikipedia on the article's discussion page. If you manage to improve on the earlier version of the article and overcome its (perceived) shortcomings, the new article cannot be speedily deleted, and any attempt to remove it again must be settled before the community, on AFD.
was that I was doing the right thing. I would like the article to be restored and perhaps undergo another Afd. I am currently working on the article here: User:Msrasnw/Thomas_Howes_(actor) and the message on the talk page I did not have time to add to the main space is here: User_talk:Msrasnw/Thomas_Howes_(actor). I hope this is OK to bring here - but it seems to me a big gap on the Downton Page. Thanks in advance and sorry if I have done something wrong. (Msrasnw (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
PS I have discussed this with the deleting admin before bringing it here and mentioned to him that I thought asking for a review was the way to go. User_talk:Orangemike#Thomas_Howes_.28actor.29
- If you are already working on a new version in your userspace, what would be the point of undeleting the previous version? – ukexpat (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I want the article in the main space (Msrasnw (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- You're asking for restoration, but have not (in my view) addressed the reasons for deletion. Not everybody in the cast of this obscure (outside the UK) new show is notable; we're not talking Eastenders or Coronation Street here. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Orangemike, Downton Abbey is highly notable and to say it obscure (outside the UK) is not, I think, relevant
- * It cost £1 million an hour to film, making it the most expensive British TV show ever produced. (WP)
- * The most successful British period drama since Brideshead Revisited, with UK ratings exceeding 10 million viewers.(WP) (W/c 8th Nov average viewing figures Downton Abbey 10.2million Coronation Street 9.6 million BARB figures)
- Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 11:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Overturn deletion. Even if, in the opinion of an administrator, the new article does not address all of the issues raised in the previous deletion discussion, if the article is nonetheless improved from the article that was the subject of the previous deletion discussion, criterion G4 does not apply. The remedy is an AfD, where those of the opinion that the article addresses the prior AfD issues and those of the opposite opinion can discuss the matter. Consensus, not administrators, make that determination. --Bsherr (talk) 05:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Undelete and send to AfD- In the original AfD the article is described (I can't see it myself, not being an admin) as a one sentence microstub. This is clearly not the case for Msrasnw's new version, and so I think the new version is sufficiently different from the old one to not be a clear G4. Reyk YO! 11:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I repeat my question, why undelete? If the article's creator thinks that their userspace draft is ready, just move it to mainspace, drama over. – ukexpat (talk) 14:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to Ukexpat - I moved it to main space and it was speedily G4'd. Should I just do it again or do you have the power to move it back? (Msrasnw (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Doing so brings up attribution problems. Msrasnw, what's the origin of your userspace draft? Did you at any point copy it from somewhere else on Wikipedia? If so, we need to make sure the original history is preserved. --Bsherr (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - I just typed it using the sources indicated as references - it is the same as the one Mr OrangeMike G4'd except for a couple of minor additions I have made to it since then. (Msrasnw (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Were there any other contributors to the one deleted, or to yours in your user space? --Bsherr (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No (Msrasnw (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Ok, then, you can, if you wish, move the article in your userspace into the mainspace, instead of continuing this deletion review, but you will not necessarily have the assurance it won't be speedy deleted again for the same reason. Up to you. --Bsherr (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn speedy per Reyk. It looks like the article has seen significant improvements. No objection to a quick trip to AfD though. Hobit (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. Should pass an AFD if required, don't see the point though, it's now well sourced. Szzuk (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow Recreation The version of the article in user space makes a more than credible claim of notability, backed by sources, and is not a direct recreation of a deleted article. No reason not to allow this article to be moved to mainspace. Alansohn (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn speedy deletion - The reason for deletion -- he does not appear to have enough coverage in reliable sources as presented by the close of the AfD -- were overcome by the recreated article and the speedy deletion was improper. Perhaps that is what typically happens when an article is sent to AfD seven minutes after creation. The point of DRV discussing admins actions is for learning. If the DRV were closed and the article's creator move it to mainspace without consensus, then an admin learning opportunity would be lost. Since there are diverse opinions in this DRV, Msrasnw cannot close this DRV. Only consensus or a change of opinion by OrangeMike can close this DRV. DRV isn't drama, its process. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
