There is no reason for these pages to have been deleted. There was no consensus, not even a second vote for deletion, just a comment on a mistake. Given Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiAfrica/Stubs/Chiyao, it's clear that anyone could add a single sentence to each page and they would be kept so I suggest that it be relisted or reversed to restoration so people can add lede sentences and keep them. Sulky mulky (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User who deleted page and closed the discussion did not objectively weigh arguments against Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Multiple relevant sources meet sufficient coverage to meet GNG and article should be relisted:
Closer's note: I've not previously been contacted about this and recommend declining this request, as it is an attempt to re-argue the AfD, rather than reviewing any procedural errors. After two relists, a third is normally not done. Also it's a bit weird that the nominator's only edits are about this DRV request. Sandstein 14:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Response Procedural errors: 2nd AFD had quick and thorough [[1]]Master Editor III speedy keep response, then the AFD was re-listed twice, both delete votes that followed have procedural errors.
The first: "There's another Blake Fitzpatrick in the Documentary Media department at Ryerson." Not valid argument for deletion under [[2]]WP:UNFAMILIAR and [[3]]WP:NTEMP
Second procedural error for deletion follows same: "Sourcing does not suggest sufficient coverage to meet GNG."
This is a false statement under [[4]]WP:OBS and [[5]]WP:NTEMP, as pointed out in depth above. The article has multiple reliable sources.
This leaves significant debate about the restoration of the page.Filmfan655321 (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Deletion review is not for making an argument to keep if you missed the discussion before it was closed. The closure was not based on WP:OBS, nor were any of the opinions expressed. Some sources exist, indeed, but they're not enough. That's why three of the four participants in the discussion thought the article should be deleted. It doesn't mean Fitzpatrick isn't important and/or talented, but it does mean that coverage of him is not sufficient for a stand-alone article on Wikipedia. I don't think the sources you're linking to here change anything. Regardless, the point of deletion review is not to say "I don't think this should be deleted because this person is notable" -- it is to ask whether the person who closed the discussion properly assessed consensus among the participants therein, weighing arguments against Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The first step, if you disagree, is not to run here but to discuss it with [in this case, Sandstein]. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 15:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Response "it is to ask whether the person who closed the discussion properly assessed consensus among the participants therein, weighing arguments against Wikipedia policies and guidelines." I argue that they did not. All sources are reliable and adhere with wiki policies for an article.
"but they are not enough." What is enough? They were enough to overturn the first AFD that had five deletes and one keep. I think the article should be edited, no doubt, but not deleted. Filmfan655321 (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Reasonable close given the participation. The 2008 AfD wasn't closed with an actual outcome and shouldn't be considered an endorsement of the subject's notability; a "speedy keep" isn't valid in this case and in any event wasn't pursued. Absent the dubious withdrawal in 2008 the article might well have been deleted. Also, Filmfan655321 (talk·contribs), who are you and how is it that your first edits are to challenge the outcome of a low-traffic AfD? Assume good faith and all that, but it's an odd way to start one's editing career and there were accusations of COI during the 2008 discussion. Mackensen(talk) 18:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
response What participation? All that was there were people using WP:OBS as a reason to delete the page. Were there accusations of COI in the 2008 discussion? I saw some in the 2nd afd, but do not remember seeing any in the first. My name is Daniel. I like coming to see if this person is doing anything new every once in a while. I happened to visit it today and found it was deleted and decided to contribute my two cents after further research on all that has happened. Is my editing not the reason of wikipedia? What is your name? What is your address? Kidding do not care. Filmfan655321 (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Temporarily restored for discussion at this Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and close as I was also not notified of this, but fortunately I'm always watching; there was enough for deleting and I still confirm. SwisterTwistertalk 22:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I apologized for not notifying you as i did not know how to do this Filmfan655321 (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Response Non-arguments were not looked at and discarded upon closing. There is nothing according to wiki rules to confirm article deletion other than certain changes that were made that can be fixed without page deletion: i.e. bias or COI interpretation. If those are removed or fixed to public liking the article will be fine. Filmfan655321 (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- DRV is not to simply re-argue the AfD. I don't see any procedural errors in the way this AfD was closed- after several relists the consensus was indisputably to delete it. ReykYO! 08:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
response Both delete votes are non-arguments. That is a procedural error on the closer for not noticing this. Users Rhododendrites and K.e.coffman both did not give a valid reason to delete the page. Both of their calls for deletion fall under WP:OBSFilmfan655321 (talk) 10:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing anything worthy of note. I found the same interview as used in the article, with Rogue Cinema. I also located a professor in the School of Image Arts, Ryerson University, also Blake Fitzpatrick. I'm not sure if the Ryerson Fitzpatrick is not more notable than the one under discussion, as he appears to be a photographer of some renown. The director Fitzpatrick received a somewhat obscure award (link). In summary, the coverage is insufficient to sustain an encyclopedia entry in my view. K.e.coffman (talk) 11:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[[6]]WP:NTEMP "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." The delete arguments are all ignoring this wikipedia guidelineFilmfan655321 (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Opposing opinions do not become "non-arguments" just because you disagree with them. ReykYO! 11:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, stop badgering everyone. You've replied to everyone with the same repetitious (and false) claim about WP:OBS. If you haven't convinced anyone with that routine before, why would you imagine it will start working now? ReykYO! 11:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a matter of convincing or badgering so please relax sir, it is a matter of fact. My claim is not false. You do not agree with facts. "As long as proof of its existence can be given with a reliable source" is what WP:OBS says. Now you mean to tell me that a kid making movies at the turn of the twenty first century and being featured in a publication that Ernest Hemingway worked for is not sufficient coverage of note? As I said before, delete the stuff that is not needed or COI. Shady award? Delete it! It wasn't even added until after the 2nd AFD. Hell, delete all of the awards, that's not what I think the article should be about per the references. Filmfan655321 (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as the best close of a poor AfD. Ignoring the first part of the "speedy keep" !vote (which was almost word-for-word taken from WP:LASTTIME), the question was whether the sourcing was enough. Was it really? One said "yes" and two said "no" with little if any discussion. Ironically, I think Tokyogirl79's "not arguing delete yet" comment was the most convincing argument to delete. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If those articles are all about the same person then I think we've got something best closed as No Consensus. If they aren't, then delete is almost certainly the right call. Can anyone provide evidence of this one way or the other? Hobit (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Hobit: Both AfDs are for a film director, and going by MichaelQSChmidt's speedy keep !votes it is the same person, yes. But consensus can change, especially after 8 years, so I do not think the former AfD is all that convincing. TigraanClick here to contact me 11:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The AfD wasn't well attended, but it ran for multiple weeks and the close certainly represents the consensus of the discussion. If an established editor came along with these sources, I would be inclined to consider their case more carefully, but based on their contribution history and the types of arguments they are making, Filmfan655321 is almost certainly a sock of somebody who has been around a while, and socks have no standing here. -- RoySmith(talk) 22:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. AfD closure was correct.. All the sources brought up in this DRV were either in the article at the time of the AfD or already published online and discoverable at the time. So with the nom, two delete !votes, and a neutral, leaning delete !vote all mentioning their inability to find sources that demonstrate notability, set against one !vote that the sources do demonstrate notability, this was a reasonable close. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per notability "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2] – that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary.
A kid making films doing everything himself in 1999 is remarkable, significant, interesting, and unusual enough to deserve attention per above wiki explanation of notability as well as according to major news sources.
The kind of work that this kid makes is so unusual that it is also notable under above guidelines.
Making video games, writing books, putting out musical albums, and doing multiple feature films entirely by himself is prolific and remarkable per above wiki explanation of notability. Filmfan655321 (talk) 11:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per the procedural error of closer counting heads rather than evaluating arguments. One of the two delete votes was based upon "here's another Blake Fitzpatrick in the Documentary Media department at Ryerson" which has nothing to do with the Blake Fitzpatrick being discussed. And second delete vote was vased upon "Sourcing does not suggest sufficient coverage to meet GNG." The closer should have evaluated better than he did, as tte article had multiple reliable sources. Though in the minority here, I'd still suggest the AFD be overturned per my own research prior to my vote at the AFD showing the topic notable per guideline and adjudged as suitably notable at the last AFD. I believe it was returned to AFD again because WP:BEFORE was either overlooked, ignored, or forgotten. And yes, the two delete visitors to that discussion did not make policy or guideline supported opinions and should not have been given too much weight. As the article now belongs to Wiki and fluff was removed, it became a nice and well-sourced stub to meet WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. And even with it being deconstructed since the first AFD's keep, it can and should stay. My own quick look at Google News for "Blake Fitzpatrick, director", showed numerous articles about this young director... multiple in-depth and extensive coverage in reliable sources. He has the coverage. The notability is most definitely there through, at minimum, the Kansas City Star, and the Wichita Eagle, and lots of others. No topic "must" have world-wide coverage, and it expected that the major newspapers in his area might choose to cover him. . Schmidt, Michael Q. 13:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So your argument is that you did a "quick look", linked to google hits (in which I see almost nothing), assumed bad faith on the part of every other participant, and view your own opinion as greater than all others. ...but it's those of us who searched for sources and based our !votes on notability guidelines that "did not make policy or guideline supported opinions". You have selectively quoted my own !vote to omit the part where I concluded he fails WP:BIO, pointing only to where I draw a distinction between the Blake Fitzpatricks. My saying that was in part a response to your linking of google hits, where most of the hits that would lend to notability are about the other Fitzpatrick. What is also not compelling at all as repeatedly claiming that the previous AfD is meaningful at all, much less supportive of keeping. It was nominated, 4 other people supported deletion, you alone supported keeping, and then the nominator withdrew the nomination. That would obviously be reverted as an entirely illegitimate close today. You've done nothing to support a case for notability other than lawyer that the other people's contributions being somehow invalid for reasons you leave it to us to do the research for (i.e. linking to google hits). — Rhododendritestalk \\ 13:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NTEMP disqualifies your argument Rhododendrites. There are reliable newspaper sources. Just because they are not recent does not mean they are not reliable. Filmfan655321 (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
....... Nearly all of your comments here are to badger or misrepresent what others are saying, tossing out references to irrelevant pages. There's nothing in my comment that could even be misinterpreted as relevant to NTEMP. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 16:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm finding almost nothing about this subject" - your words. Major newspaper articles from fifteen years ago that were nortable at the time but are hard to find currently is NTEMP. Filmfan655321 (talk) 02:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The Afd has four arguments. Those !voting to overturn seem to be misunderstanding all of them.
The nominator, SwisterTwister, states none of his films have articles, nothing convincing at IMDb and "none of the listed sources are actual coverage and my own searches have found none." Insufficient coverage is a valid argument.
MichaelQSchmidt !votes speedy keep without a valid speedy keep reason. Citing WP:NOTAGAIN is well off the mark as the explanation given is essentially that it survived before (specifically spelled out as a bad reason at WP:NOTAGAIN) and the bad faith assumption that "WP:BEFORE was either overlooked, ignored, or forgotten" (the nominator directly states they looked for sources and the assumption they otherwise failed to follow WP:BEFORE is baseless). Schmidt then states the article is "a nice and well-sourced stub to meet WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO." Really? EVERY source in the article was for one sentence. WP:BASIC calls for "significant coverage". We don't have cites for his birth date, laudry list of occupations (that missed his stint at McDonalds but managed to include multiple occupations not even hinted at elsewhere) and list of non-notable awards from non-notable organizations. WP:ANYBIO seeks subjects who have "received a well-known and significant award or honor", which I cannot see as applying, or has "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record". Maybe his beret will one day be in the Smithsonian between to Archie Bunker's chair and Satchmo's trumpet, but I don't see any indication of that yet.
Yes, Rhododendrites does say there is someone else with the same name. Were that the only argument presented, it would be invalid, as repeatedly claimed here. However, they also state, "I'm finding almost nothing about this subject (i.e. fails WP:BIO)." That is a valid argument.
K.e.coffman's argument that "sourcing does not suggest sufficient coverage to meet GNG" would have been better if it had included comments about trying to find sources. WP:OBS, however, is about "I haven't heard of it", which is not what they said.
Filmfan655321 apparently disagrees with the deletion discussion's outcome, which is fine but not relevant here. Their argument that the closer failed to weigh the !votes' explanations against policy does not seem to hold water. And yes, it is weird for someone to register an account specifically to revive a fairly obscure article at DRV, notify several dozen editors and show several signs of specific familiarity with editing Wikipedia. The article has been edited by numerous SPAs and disposable IPs, including Authenticpublicity, Monumentalpictures, Bukowskismother, Lpjeeves, Toratzos, Nobudgetluver, etc. The editors notified by Filfan655321 seem to be a selection of recent editors of the article, but do not include any of these SPAs. Very curious. But you are "new to Wikipedia".[7] - SummerPhDv2.0 15:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Summer i first clicked on a bot who worked on this article and just about posted to their talk page. If you would like me to contact users who contributed to the article from the history that do not have talk pages I will be more than happy to. i do not think they will respond. Filmfan655321 (talk) 08:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to NC Arguments that don't detail why the sources aren't sufficient. No one on the delete side discussed a single source, they just expressed their overall opinion. We've got 3 deletes (including the nom) and 1 keep, which would be more than enough numerically if there was some commentary on the sources that are actually available. Saying things like "none of the listed sources are actual coverage" when, well, they do have coverage of the topic, makes it hard to give that comment with any weight. MQS provides some sources but other than TokyoGirl79, I'm not seeing anyone actually discussing those sources or the ones in the article. I think TokyoGirl79 nailed the situation (sources are on the subject, but the quality of the sources is questionable) but she stayed on the fence. Hobit (talk) 02:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you seeing MQS provide any sources at all? Everybody looked for sources (I presume). Nobody at the AfD linked to any. I didn't discuss any because I didn't find any worth discussing. MQS made some vague gesture by linking us to Google searches we would have all already done, linked to wikipedia articles about newspapers (searching KC Star's website for "blake fitzpatrick" returns zero hits, and usually when there are good sources people don't link to a wikipedia article), and he used more words than others. That's the extent of it. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 03:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
True, sorry. "He pointed out the sources that were in the article" is more accurate. Hobit (talk) 05:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's discuss the sources Rhododendrites or delete the page. You have dodged every attempt to discuss the sources with a bunch of meaningless words. Filmfan655321 (talk) 02:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse too much vandalism has been added to this page by special interests recently. (Ryerson University and Debra Heyward are obvious.) A revert would make sense, but it already got a mind boggling 2nd AFD passed. Filmfan655321 (talk) 04:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
