Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 April 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2015 April 12
2015 April 14 >

13 April 2015[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Death of Chris Currie (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Death of Chris Currie was deleted today, a few hours after I created it. It is an article about the death over a decade ago of a man driving a car in New Zealand, who was killed by a teenager throwing stones at random cars. The explanation given was that "it is substantially the same as the article deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Currie", but note that that AFD was closed in January 2007. The two articles cannot have been "substantially" the same because the article I created today included discussion of the ongoing conversation around this death in New Zealand, where articles continue to appear discussing the stone-thrower as an unusually young defendant in a murder case, the case itself in the context of the ongoing problem of death and injuries caused by rocks thrown at random motor vehicles, ethnic tensions in New Zealand, and as an example of the general problem of and the problem of youth delinquency. (I happened on the topic precisely because it is still being discussed) It is also discussed on more random occasions, such as the retirement of the prosecuting attorney, but even this sort of mention speak to the fact that this death continues to be familiar to kiwis more than a decade after it occurred. I created the article in good faith, having seen many WP articles about individuals notable only for the memorable conditions in which they died. Not only can the old AFD not have reflected the fact that this case continued to receive notability validated by significant news coverage more than 10 years on. It was, in fact, not a very persuasive AFD. More editors wanted to keep the article than to delete it, there was little discussion of policy, and the objections were on the grounds that Currie himself was not notable - which he clearly was not: his death was. However, no editor proposed a title change to the Death of Chris Currie. I come to argue that an article on the Death of Chris Currie would pass WP:GNG due to extensive and ongoing extensive coverage in major sources. I asked the deleting editor to restore it and allow me to improve it. Then, if he still found it inadequate, to put it up for AFD and see how other editors viewed it, as a preferable alternative to taking it to this board. I edit AFD regularly, and it does not seem to me that the article was an appropriate candidate for SPEEDY deletion. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first version of Death of Chris Currie was taken from User:Evil Monkey/murder#Chris Currie, which itself was taken from Chris Currie as of about 7 July 2006. I don't dispute that E.M.Gregory expanded the article and added some more recent references.-gadfium 01:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit re-creation. Eight years is a long time and standards may well have changed. The content isn't identical. It might be a good idea to merge the edit histories of Chris Currie and Death of Chris Currie if the latter is restored. Mackensen (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • At first glance, recreating a similar (although not totally similar) article at a different title could be read as trying to make an end-run around process. What do you say to this? Stifle (talk) 08:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was not an attempt to make an "end-run" around a policy. I had no idea that a previous article on Currie's death had existed until my article was deleted. What I found, or thought I had found, was a section on a longer page being maintained by User:Evil Monkey/murder#Chris Currie, a page listing many murders in New Zealand. It turned up on a google search. I copied it onto the page I was creating. This was not at all clandestine, I notified UserMonkey that I was making a new article out of his Chris Currie section.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The title is compliant with current BLP practices (which didn't exist at the time), and the AfD discussion is transparently not applicable in light of the different article. Applying G4 to an article that's not substantially similar is the end run around process here. WilyD 08:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn G4 - many of the sources where printed after the AfD, meaning G4 is obviously inapplicable (the AfD is a bit hard to weigh arguments in, because it's so old, but it's mostly a NOW#NEWS argument, which must be reconsidered in light of ongoing coverage over the years). If someone wants to make an argument that it should be deleted, AfD is available. WilyD 08:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Wily above. But I would hope the article creator gets right back to adding the content that demonstrates its continuing relevance he talks about. As it is I can see why it might have been speedied, since it doesn't really say why this is important today (other than complaints about the perp getting such a light sentence). Daniel Case (talk) 03:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Will do.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The article included references which did not exist at the time of the AFD, and as such it is manifestly unreasonable to apply CSD:G4 on this occasion. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 15 April 2015 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
Nahir Besara (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hammarby IF back in Swedish Allsvenskan, which is a fully professional league. Nahir Besara played from start in the two opening games[1]. Shmayo (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse and allow recreation. The close was correct at the time, but since this person has since debuted in a fully professional league, the article can be re-created. Reyk YO! 15:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but allow recreation - exactly as above. The result was the right one at the time (and the nomination here doesn't seek to overturn it anyway) but the situation has changed so recreation should be allowed. St★lwart111 06:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - delete rather than userfy is the right outcome, but only because there's no suggestion of who to userfy to. If someone wants it userfied, DRV should endorse that (or any of the chumps in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles can just do it without discussion). WilyD 16:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)a[reply]
    • I think you meant to post this next section down? Reyk YO! 21:12, 14 April 2015 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
Centre for Women, Ageing and Media (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deleted despite consensus to keep it 132.205.236.66 (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse- the closer did right to not give much weight to SPA accounts, personal attacks against the nominator, or baseless claims that "there must be sources out there somewhere". Reyk YO! 13:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. Unless there's some fundamental reason which requires deletion (i.e. copyvio or WP:BLP issues), there's no harm in letting somebody continue to work on this. It needs to be understood, however, that this isn't a free ticket to recreating the article at some point in the future. The point of the userfication exercise is to address the issues raised in the AfD, and that will only happen by reading and understanding WP:RS. This also requires that somebody stand up here and say I'm willing to take this on -- RoySmith (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the arguments for keeping the article consisted of personal attacks on the nominator, pointing to the existence of other articles, and appeals to things not found in our notability criteria (such as that two of their members had something to do with an unspecified select committee). The arguments against them were far stronger. There was plenty of support for userfication and I wouldn't object to that if someone wants to work on it, but I can't fault the close. Hut 8.5 17:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse There were no policy-based arguments for retention and apparently no sources that helped with WP:N, so endorse was the only option. But I'm fine with a userfy if someone wants to take a shot at fixing it. I'd suggest contacting RoySmith or myself before moving it back into article-space though (either will give you a good sense if sources are enough that it would stand a chance). A Google book search makes me think it's probably a notable topic, but I can't find sources that meet our sourcing requirements. Hobit (talk) 00:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Per Hobit. Mackensen (talk) 02:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Closure was reasonable based on a reading of the discussion, and it is long-standing tradition that new and unregistered users will have a lower weighting. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - delete rather than userfy is the right outcome, but only because there's no suggestion of who to userfy to. If someone wants it userfied, DRV should endorse that (or any of the chumps in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles can just do it without discussion). WilyD 16:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, with no prejudice against recreation should reliable sources start taking notice of the center. An XfD participant's behavior should not be used in assessing an administrator's close unless it directly obscured or interfered with the ability to interpret consensus. However, with that out of the way, this was closed correctly. The only facially reliable source that mentions the subject (the Western Daily Press article) does so only in passing. And the keep !voters here did not really attempt to argue why we should have considered any other sources they used to be reliable. Daniel Case (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2015 (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/2015_April_13&oldid=1069621324"