- The Dating Guy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Attention: scroll down to "Concise summary" below to see a quickly summarized version of these arguments.
Attention (for closing administrator): I have left a "Note for closing administrator" below.
Per WP:DRV: "Deletion Review may be used: 3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;" this is the case here. I have found 4 additional WP:RS and an additional link for an old one, bringing the total to 7, as follows:
The old reliable sources:
An old reliable source with an additional link:
- [4] and [5] (the latter link is new) - this website as a whole unquestionably satisfies the criteria
The new reliable sources:
- This feels like a lot of reprinted press releases and blogs. The last one is actually somewhat promising (a real, if short, review) if you can show that the blog author is somehow an expert in media. You hint at that but don't provide evidence. At the moment, I'm fascinated that this show somehow didn't get reviews in the mainstream press, or any clearly reliable press. Even if it was horrible, it should have gotten something. There is coverage at [16] which may well count toward WP:N as might [17] (both are well-respected comic sources, certainly reliable in their area). Hobit (talk) 11:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The only ones that could reasonably be "reprinted press releases" are the ones from AWN. The others are clearly original writing, at least as far as I see. Also, there are no "blogs" here, again at least as far as I can tell - I clearly pointed out that the last one is actually by someone with significant credentials according to the respective list. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 11:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- [18] is plainly a self-published blog. The only thing it has going for it is that the author sometimes writes opinion pieces for more respected media outlets. Per WP:SPS the only way this could qualify as a reliable source is if the author is an "established expert" in the field, and it seems a very shaky thing to base notability on. Hut 8.5 17:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't quite follow - if the "established expert" criterion is from WP:SPS itself, then why does it seem "a very shaky thing to base notability on"? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- For a start I don't think the author of that piece qualifies as an "established expert". He's a journalist who writes opinion pieces for news organisations, sometimes on the subject of media. If he was an academic or something you might have a point, but he isn't. Our articles are supposed to be based on reliable sources. Self-published and questionable sources can sometimes be used in some circumstances, but proposing to base an article on one is another thing entirely. Hut 8.5 20:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You haven't made a valid argument as to why he doesn't qualify as an "established expert". If the term meant "academic", then do you not think it would simply state that instead? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You haven't made any sort of argument as to why he should qualify as an "established expert", and the burden of proof is on you. The term doesn't mean "academic", and I never said it did. I gave academics as an example of someone who would likely qualify as an expert. Being a journalist who sometimes writes about Canadian media doesn't make you an expert on Canadian TV though, and I can't see any other reason to think this person is an expert. Hut 8.5 21:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Being a journalist who sometimes writes about Canadian media doesn't make you an expert on Canadian TV" - this is the statement which I take issue with. Do you have any evidence that this is the case? As far as I am aware, Wikipedia policy makes no such assertion. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, the burden of proof is on you. You are the one who wants the article restored, you are the one claiming this is a reliable source, and you are the one who needs to demonstrate that this person is an established expert. What I have seen so far does not remotely convince me that this is the case. Hut 8.5 23:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How can someone possibly "convince" someone else of something like that? It's obviously a judgement call in the end. In any case, though, I would ask that you evaluate the merits of permitting restoration on the basis of all the potential sources (both old and new), including those another user mentioned above, and not just one. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 03:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that something involves judgement doesn't mean you can't convince someone of it. I base my judgement on the evidence I have seen. If you show me evidence of this person's expertise I may change my mind. Hut 8.5 09:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: see, this is why Wikipedia has such a massive problem with WP:Systemic bias. World media is very US-centric, and Internet media even more so. I can practically guarantee that if absolutely everything about this show was the same except that it happened to be made in association with a US channel, this article wouldn't have been deleted even once. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, actually. Popular culture in an English-speaking developed country is exactly the kind of thing where there ought to be plenty of sources available, if they exist. Hut 8.5 20:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You're about to fall into a trap - arguing with someone who's researched the topic in question extensively, and almost certainly far more than you have. Do you really want to proceed, or are you going to back out before it's too late? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to note that I did perhaps get a bit snappy in the comment above, but that aspect of the comment was meant to be more humorous than anything else. It wasn't meant as a threat but as a simple statement of fact - I really do know so much about this topic that I think it's pointless to try to argue with me about it. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If asking you for your evidence is "arguing", or "falling into a trap", then there's no need to threaten Hut 8.5. I'll be your Huckleberry.—S Marshall T/C 21:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's one thing to discuss a legitimate point. It's quite another to somehow attempt to equate the media reach of a population of around 300 million with that of one of about 30 million in a clear attempt to continue the systemic bias that pervades Wikipedia (which also favours the UK, by the way). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What I mostly write is biographies of French and German people, so I do understand the concern about systemic bias, and I sympathise. Nevertheless, when you're asked for your sources on Wikipedia, the most appropriate response is to list your sources. Bristling and posturing is a suboptimal alternative.
- With that said my personal perspective is that DRV isn't the article police. This is not AfD and our role is not to conduct a detailed analysis of the sources. I feel that our role is to check that there really are new sources (yup!) and that this isn't some kind of attempted end run around a previous consensus or any other procedural diddle. It's not: it's a good faith request to revisit an old discussion. Therefore my position is permit restoration, without prejudice to a subsequent AfD, and with an appended request that Dogmaticeclectic agrees to climb down a little, engage in a discussion about sources in a collegial way, and generally act like someone we can work with.—S Marshall T/C 22:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - ordinarily I'd be all for recreation where there is a good-faith attempt to start a new article on the basis of new sources. But this has been to AFD twice (deleted both times) and at DRV three times (though one was to request recreation as a redirect). In total, it has been deleted 8 times in 4 years. S Marshall is right about the purpose of DRV, but what is there to discuss if you have declared all sources "unquestionable"? And when an editor questioned some, you threatened him. Most of the sources look to have been published before the first AFD, and certainly before the second. Neither the delete crowd (per WP:BEFORE) nor the keep crowd managed to find them? Stalwart111 23:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's part of the reason why I got a bit snappy: "the delete crowd" didn't bother to try to find more sources because it doesn't want this article here. It's a simple fact. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 02:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In any case, the majority of these sources were not in fact present in any of the previous deletion discussions. I made this quite clear above and would thus ask if you could consider taking the side of permitting restoration. I really think this could be a viable article if it actually got the chance to flourish. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 03:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Then that's an issue. WP:BEFORE is required and if we're deleting something (twice!) when potential sources are available then that suggests there have been a lapse in the way the deletion process is supposed to operate. You can still have a discussion about the validity of the sources but the fact that they haven't been considered concerns me. I'm still mulling over a view on this but as I said initially, I would ordinarily favour recreation, were it not for the additional circumstances. Stalwart111 05:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Assuming there was in fact "a lapse in the way the deletion process is supposed to operate [sic]", is that not an additional argument for permitting restoration? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 05:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely, but we're talking about overturning (effectively) 6 administrative decisions and 2 community decisions by consensus. I'm not opposed to recreation, but perhaps a good user-space draft would be the way to go? Stalwart111 06:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps the old revisions of the article should be moved into my userspace, where I can clean them up using the sources above. If you're in favour of this approach, I would ask that you formally state this. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 06:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd also like to point out that neither the number of previous deletions nor WP:BEFORE are valid arguments to use in deletion discussions - each deletion should or should not be performed strictly on the merits, or lack thereof, of the evidence presented in the respective discussion. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 03:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, there wasn't really a "keep crowd" - only one other user in each discussion expressed support for keeping the article, and both of these supporters' positions were harshly criticized by the "delete crowd", showing the obvious deletionist bias present in both discussions. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 03:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think WP:BEFORE is a perfectly valid point of discussion and I would think you'd be in favour of discussing it given it raises concerns about both original AFD nominations. I also don't think it's invalid to point out that an article has been deleted 8 times (by consensus twice) because it is those administrative decisions and consensus that you are seeking to overturn here. But WP:BURDEN is also a valid point of discussion here, given both parties' inability to find the sources you've now presented above. If, having participated in both discussions, you have now managed to find sources you were unable to find the first two times, I don't see anything wrong with you being allowed to present them. But part of the issue here is the presentation, not the content. There's no need for threats or "snappiness", especially given the almost equal failures of BEFORE and BURDEN. Oh, and I would be careful about describing good-faith consensus as "deletionist bias" especially given the fairly comprehensive analysis of sources that took place during the last AFD. Stalwart111 05:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- An example of deletionist bias from the first discussion (from an administrator, no less): "The article is nothing but cruft" Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 05:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not really evidence of "deletionist bias", just someone's opinion that the article (as it was at that point in time) should be deleted. You don't need to prove "bias" here (and you won't, anyway, with that sort of "evidence") and you're not asking for a review of either AFD - just permission to recreate. And if we're going to quote, let's quote the rest - "...and without any revelations of significant, published discussion there is no notability". Again, not really "bias" there - just regular AFD stuff. Stalwart111 06:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review It was a protected redirect to Marblemedia. but the versions before the redirect were deleted. I restored the history, but it remains protected from editing. If the decision is not to relist or restore, the situation should be returned to the prior one. DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Permit userfication in advance of formal recreation, per the discussion above. I'd like to see a good quality draft before overturning so many deletion decisions. Stalwart111 06:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted I don't see anything here that warrants reopening the issue. The sources listed above are the same kind of thing that was rejected during the AfD: TV listings, a self-published blog, an extremely brief interview with someone involved in the production of the film and several pages that look suspiciously like press releases. This page has already been through AfD twice, the second time because an editor thought they had addressed the issues from the first AfD (only to be told resoundingly that this was not the case). Given this I can't support restoration based on these sources. Userfication won't help, as the issue is with the sources cited in the article rather than the wording. One point which isn't mentioned enough in these discussions is that AfD participants are expected to look for sources that aren't actually present in the article, and participants don't typically list all the sources they found and discounted in this way. The sources listed above aren't "new" - they existed at the time of the last AfD and could have been found by any participant who looked. It is therefore quite possible that these sources were already inspected and rejected by the AfD participants. Hut 8.5 09:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You're clearly a deletionist and are thus unlikely to be swayed to change your mind about this, but I've tried to do so below anyways.
- However, I take issue with several things you wrote above: you ignored the pre-existing sources, particularly the entire article about the show in a widely-circulated newspaper, as well as the review on a website for which I have demonstrated notability. You also provide no evidence whatsoever for this claim: "It is therefore quite possible that these sources were already inspected and rejected by the AfD participants." I, on the other hand, have explained why I think the opposite occurred. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please assume good faith. People here are trying to be reasonable and civil with you, and you should do the same. Sources which were in the article at the time of deletion are not going to get you anywhere here, as the AfD considered and rejected them. Being a Canadian journalist and blogger, even a notable or award-winning blogger, does not make you an "established expert" on the subject of Canadian TV. Several of the commenters in the AfD indicate they looked for additional sources and rejected those they found, and if they were doing their job properly they should have done this anyway. Your "explanation" of why they may not have found these sources is nothing more than an ill-considered accusation of bad faith. Hut 8.5 11:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The AFD rejected them because there weren't enough of them! Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 11:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, no. Quantity of sources has nothing to do with it. Quality of sources is what matters. Notability requires significant coverage in third-party reliable sources, the sources were rejected because they weren't independent, weren't reliable or didn't constitute significant coverage. You can demonstrate notability with one source, if it's good enough. Hut 8.5 13:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You are wrong! "This is actually usable as a RS to show notability, but we'd need more than one such source." Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a comment made by one person who is in fact noting that one source is not of sufficient quality to demonstrate notability (specifically that it's too brief and is written from an in-universe perspective). And there's no need to shout about everything. Hut 8.5 15:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- By twisting the meaning of another user's comment into something completely different than the obvious original intent, you have crossed the line from legitimate discussion into trolling. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Enough. Personal attacks and accusations of bad faith are strongly disapproved of here, and if you want to have a constructive discussion with someone you will have to stop resorting to them. It is increasingly clear to me that I won't be able to have such a discussion with you. Hut 8.5 15:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "It is increasingly clear to me that I won't be able to have such a discussion with you." Well, I suppose it's a start that we at least agreed upon something. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional evidence: for the "blog" source, besides the fact that the person behind the blog also writes for a number of conventional media sources (Metro, The Huffington Post, and CBC Radio One, as noted above), I have found evidence that the blog itself is notable - [19] states the following: "FFWD Magazine readers have named Mike’s Bloggity Blog Calgary’s Best Blog for the past three years. And in 2012, Tourism Calgary awarded Mike the coveted White Hat Award, for his contribution to the Media in Calgary." Note that FFWD Magazine is notable enough in itself to have a Wikipedia article, and Tourism Calgary is obviously notable as a government agency. Additionally, the fact that this blog has received a significant number of awards (others are mentioned on that page too) speaks for itself. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, if this isn't convincing enough for this source, I'm not sure what I could even theoretically add - I've demonstrated the reliability of both the blogger and the blog as sources. An "established expert" is a nebulous term which I think is in any case satisfied by the fact that the blogger writes for the conventional media sources previously mentioned. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this meets WP:N given Dogmaticeclectic's sources (yes the blog is an RS, and so is [20] for example) and the ones I found above. Allow recreation with no prejudice against a new AfD though I really am not fond of the sourcing (minimal coverage of the show itself, just the business of making the show, threats of lawsuits etc.) The new sources are enough IMO to overcome the old AfD. Hobit (talk) 04:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This DRV is a review the 2nd AfD, which largely pointed to the sourcing used for the article as the problems: (i) whether enough source material exists to support the article and (ii) the sourcing used in the article. TV production chart from March 2008 is an early source of material for the animated 2009 to 2010 show (adventures of four friends looking for love). That was followed by a number of TV production charts and then some decent press releases such as [21][22]. Those and the show itself didn't seem to generate actual detailed subsequent news coverage of The Dating Guy. The next set of source material was The Dating Guy mentioned along with other things, e.g., "programs like Robot Chicken, The Dating Guy and Archer ...", "Cartoon Network's "Almost Naked Animals" and Teletoon's "The Dating Guy"). And that's were the source material has left off at. The material I reviewed probably is not enough source material - old or new - for the article as of this DRV. This brings us to the main issue raised at AfD2 - the sourcing used in the article. From the discussion in this DRV, I do not see that as being overcome. Link [6] above,[23] is characterized above as "unquestionably satisfies the criteria" of significant new information. However, it contains only two sentences on the Dating Guy, with only "dating misadventures of 20-something urban youths" being something that could be summarized into the Wikipedia article. That material is not significant and, since the article mentioned that the show was about "adventures of four friends looking for love", it is not entirely new to what was considered at the time of AfD2. Along with the problem of how things are being conveyed, it also is clear that, if the article is allowed to be recreated, it seems unlikely that the article could be developed through constructive discussion. Even if there were enough coverage to get just past WP:N, I do not think there is a good likelihood that an article on The Dating Guy could be developed to meet content policies when you take into account the multiple AfDs, DRVs, and the discussion in this DRV. -- Jreferee (talk) 11:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Concise summary: let's bring this discussion back to the basics. WP:GNG requires significant coverage in multiple, independent, and reliable sources. The links at [24] and [25] are already enough to satisfy this. Add the link at [26], as well as the snippets of coverage from the other links, and you can see that anyone who doesn't want this article restored doesn't want to follow Wikipedia policy. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 11:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note for closing administrator: since most opinions expressed above have been either in support of userification or outright restoration, with exactly half opting for the latter, I would like to note that I would strongly prefer direct restoration - perhaps other editors would be more likely to help work on the article then - but would definitely work to improve the article in the event of userification. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
