Endorse- The consensus at the AfD was clearly judged correctly. ReykYO! 10:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Aye, this seems like a clearly correct reading of consensus. Even if we ignored the headcount completely - and we don't - the keep arguments were pretty handwavey ["it's important" is not generally viewed as an adequate argument in and of itself]. I see that the nominator didn't discuss with the closer first, but I am inclined to think that that's no big issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – you would need a killer of an argument to overcome a clear numerical consensus like that, and "it's important; it's useful" do not suffice. The delete !votes raised serious policy-based arguments (e.g. WP:NOT; WP:OR), and the keep !votes did not adequately rebut them, opting instead for classic WP:AADD arguments. Since deletion clearly has consensus from both a numerical and a strength-of-argument perspective, the close was correct. I also note for the appellant that DRV is not AfD round 2; the statement above reads more like an attempt to relitigate the discussion than an actual challenge to the close. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close because what the DRV nom says does not mean that the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly, and it is not pertinent to any of the other four WP:DRVPURPOSE reasons. Therefore the nomination does not align with the purpose of this forum, so there is no prospect of success. — Alalch Emis (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While it seems unfortunate to those who have been maintaining them, the consensus across many AfDs is that "List of [oldest|youngest] X" are being roundly deleted as NOT something Wikipedia is going to consider appropriate for covering. I'm sorry, but that isn't something in DRV's purview to overturn, even though I feel your pain. Jclemens (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, except that the appellant doesn't state an error by the closer, just disagreement, so maybe Alalch Emis is right that this may be a Speedy Close. The appellant has a right to disagree, and a right to appeal, but not a right to have their appeal considered when they don't say why they are appealing. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and speedy close. DRV addresses failures to follow the deletion process. Arguments or re-arguments that could have been, or were, raised at the original deletion discussion are out of scope. Pithily, "DRV is not AFD round 2". Stifle (talk) 08:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the nominator doesn’t provide an actual reason why the consensus is incorrect and is just stating that it’s WP:IMPORTANT over and over. Clearly just a last-ditch attempt at saving an article someone liked. Dronebogus (talk) 00:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse clear policy-based consensus in the discussion. As the nominator just seems to want to rehash the AfD discussion I would suggest a speedy close of this. Vladimir.copic (talk) 02:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Matthew Tye – Decision endorsed, other matters referred to appropriate venues.—S MarshallT/C 15:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Endorse and keep salted - for clarity, it wasn't Shritwod who deleted the article; he nominated it for deletion. Sandstein was the deleting admin. And despite reasonably clear instructions to discuss it with the admin who deleted it, not one but three accounts managed to (incorrectly) find their way to the wrong editor's talk page to have that discussion. My ears are ringing it's that loud, but that discussion on Shritwod's page demonstrates fairly comprehensively that not much has changed since the last time (the third AFD!) this was deleted. I think we need a lot more before removing creation protection. St★lwart111 08:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well now I don't know what to think... I went to open an WP:SPI and one of them is a bloody admin. St★lwart111 08:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, bright shiny light time: WhisperToMe, Demetrios1993 and Infograbber19... how did you all randomly end up at the wrong talk page, advocating for the same repeatedly-created article, within days of each other? St★lwart111 11:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Stalwart111: I read Reddit: I recall it wasn't that post, but another comment in a different thread from a different user reminded me that the Matthew Tye article was deleted (I knew it had been deleted before, but the comment jolted my memory). My post was from 00:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC). The Tye post asking for people to review Wikipedia was 29 days ago, so that would be September 16, 2021, so I wouldn't have read that post beforehand. Anyhow I knew that there were articles since 2018, so because new sources existed I felt the issue could be revisited. Indeed Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Steps_to_list_a_new_deletion_review does suggest contacting the original AFD closer and it says nothing about the original nominator. However the idea was that I would contact the nominator (as they pursued the deletion to begin with) and if they were persuaded by new evidence, I would ping everyone else and start a discussion with them before a formal deletion review. If I was to file a deletion review I'd ping the original nominator anyway, so I felt I may as well start a discussion with the nominator. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Stalwart111: I don't think there's anything underhand going on myself. If you look at the AfD, even I thought that Shritwod was the closer at first, because their !vote is formatted differently from the others and sits immediately below the top of the AfD. I only noticed the proper close, above the header, 5 seconds later. And once the conversation had started on Shritod's page, I guess that further reinforced the view that that was where to challenge it. — Amakuru (talk) 11:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So... three separate accounts independently made the same mistake about the same three-year-old discussion and then independently arrived at the same wrong talk page, all within the same week, to advocate for recreation of an article on the basis of the same one-year-old source. Yeah, that source wasn't published last week or last month (such that people might suddenly and logically be encouraged to revisit his notability)... it was published in 2020. St★lwart111 11:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! Mystery solved: in this Reddit thread the subject of the article asks fans to help get his article restored, just a few days before the above nonsense started. That an admin would involve themselves is... concerning... but at least I know I'm not losing my mind. St★lwart111 12:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question, i ended up participating in the discussion, right after Uzer:Infograbber19 posted in the talk page of Tye's business partner, Winston Sterzel (diff). I have Sterzel's article in my watchlist, and after i saw his post, i simply reviewed his contributions and joined the discussion (diff). You can easily see this from the fact that both diffs are from the 24th of September and approximately three hours apart, yet the discussion had began from the 15th of September. Also, this is the first time i see this Reddit thread, and besides, i was interested in the creation of a new article from August, as i wrote in the aforementioned discussion. Furthermore, the Reddit thread didn't begin "a few days before the above nonsense started" (15th of September), but one day later (16th of September). Demetrios1993 (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uh huh. If I'm wrong about the dates (and it seems I am) then we should be very concerned about the real story. St★lwart111 01:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect there are ways that social media people can track mentions of themselves across various websites. Google Alerts is a thing WhisperToMe (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, now the story is that Tye found your comment on the wrong, non-indexed, user talk page here and posted to Reddit the very next day urging people to support that effort? And that when he did so, he acknowledged he wasn't familiar with Wikipedia, but didn't acknowledge that an experienced admin was already working on it? And that when he did so, he referenced a number of specific forums without referencing that editor's talk page, but brand new accounts nonetheless managed to find their way to that editor's talk page to support you? St★lwart111 03:36, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Stalwart111: I never interacted with Tye, so I don't know if he found my comment specifically or if it was some other way of coincidence. You'd have to ask him. Frankly this should be a lesson to subjects of biographies that doing advocacy like this can backfire. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my notifications have gone a bit mad. I haven't been paying it much attention. To be honest, I'm a deleter and I don't think either Tye or Sterzel pass the notability threshold. But then there are thousands of other biographies of far less notable people. Shritwod (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and keep salted- nothing's changed, and the off-site canvassing means that continued protection is required. ReykYO! 14:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and keep salted. I very much doubt that these new sources would persuade anyone at AfD, and the canvassing certainly doesn't incline me to lift the protection. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation – I believe a lot has changed since 2018, and the subject has had more coverage in reliable secondary sources (see the aforementioned discussion). In my opinion he passes WP:GNG and the guideline for creative professionals (points 1 and 3). Demetrios1993 (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CommentAllow recreation – There are similar articles in Wikipedia for others like Matthew Tye - I also believe that the BIO passes creative professionals (points 1 and 3). Infograbber19 (talk) 02:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's assumed you support recreation given your nomination. No need to also !vote. St★lwart111 06:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I have tried to find independent reliable sources and fail to find any that includes a critical assessment of Tye's activities or positions. These would be needed to write a decent article. I do see mentions, usually in dubious media, in relation to Youtube activism. The only two sources I found that seemed decent were blogs, so also not really usable. I found a few by-association mentions, i.e. in a somewhat decent source mentioning Winston with some activism context (mentions are not coverage)... Then I see online forum comments with conspiracy theories about Wikipedia and China, not usable for an article. —PaleoNeonate – 01:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How about the following ones PaleoNeonate? What's your opinion?
By the way, is there a set minimum requirement of how many independent reliable sources are needed to create an article? I have read from other users, as few as two. Demetrios1993 (talk) 13:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Multiple", so more than one. WP:THREE isn't a policy, but it can be a good guide. But the vast majority of the above are about other things (like COVID-19 or Taiwan) and include comments by the subject. They aren't coverage of the subject, which is what we require for someone to be considered notable (per WP:GNG). He might be considered notable; that is, it could be argued that he is notable, but its not clear-cut. An argument that a subject could be notable is generally not enough to overturn existing consensus, where that consensus is that they definitively are not. The off-wiki nonsense and conspiracy theories about why the article was deleted in the first place don't help. St★lwart111 05:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the honest answer. When you put it like that, indeed, most of the sources above don't meet the necessary criteria. But at least, in my opinion, these following two do. I am not saying this is enough, but at least it is a start.
“在中国，自由都是表面的”：一位逃离墙国的美国网红 – 29 July 2021 (it does include quotations, but also independent coverage)
User:WhisperToMe had also mentioned an article by The Beijinger, whose author was the "Deputy Managing Editor" of the company, and according to him this doesn't count as a WP:USERGENERATED source. If i understand correctly, he viewed it as a WP:NEWSBLOG; or might have meant something else.
The South China Morning Post (as I said above) includes some coverage of Tye. But it's 2.5 sentences about him, and 2.5 sentences about his opinion of China. And parts of both are about his video that is embedded in the article (which also falls into the "by him, not about him" category). I'm not sure whether Voice of America is considered a reliable source but the site includes no biographical information about the author and most of the text seems to be quotes from Tye himself, covering the situation in China. To the extent that it is coverage of him, it is mostly his own words about his own situation. The Beijinger is a blog. Sometimes they might be considered acceptable, if they have the sort of editorial independence that a regular news outlet might have. In this instance, the media provided for the article (images and video content) were provided by Tye, suggesting the article (on which that media was based) might not have been as independent as we would like. Again, not terrible, but not great either. And probably not enough to overturn consensus. St★lwart111 03:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the SCMP article, i assume we agree that it does count for something. Again, i know it isn't enough by its own, but even the 2.5 sentences about the subject, do meet the "Significant coverage" criterion of WP:GNG. Right? Also, we have to consider that the subject is mainly notable for his YouTube work, thus it is reasonable to expect such relevant coverage (the additional 2.5 sentences). Now that i think about it, this means that some of the other aforementioned sources might have some merit as well; excluding the quotes of the subject of course. I mean, they do provide coverage on his work, which is why he is notable (debatably) after all.
Regarding the Voice of America article, if you question its reliability based on what the respective Wikipedia lede states (While some foreign audiences have a positive view of VOA, others consider it to be a form of propaganda.), then i don't think it would affect its reliability; per WP:BIASEDSOURCES and Wikipedia:Propaganda#Scope. Furthemore, it does include biographical information about the subject; here is an auto-translation (Google Translate) of all the relevant points:
Translated article text
Matthew was born and raised in a small town in New York State, USA. In 2008, after graduating from university, he was uneasy to see his work and life at a glance, and wanted to go out and take a look. An opportunity to teach English in China brought him to Huizhou, Guangdong. He later started a family there, married a wife and had children, and his wife was still Chinese.
Compared to his real name, Laowhy86 is Matthew's better known name. This is his personal channel that he has operated on YouTube since 2012. Laowhy is a homophonic "foreigner", which also refers to seeing and interpreting China from the perspective of a foreigner like him.
Like many foreign Internet celebrities in China now, most of Matthew's early videos are about his life and travel experience in China, or a comparison between the cultures of the United States and China. Matthew said that the videos and what he experienced were very positive, but starting from about 2016, the situation has changed.
Bad omen — The experience in Inner Mongolia in 2017 gave Matthew a real sign of bad omen. At that time, he and his friend and partner, another YouTube blogger, Winston Sterzel, were filming the second travel documentary "Northern China on Motorcycles." They have previously filmed a documentary about cycling in China that shows the rural sceneries of southern China, which has gained a good reputation.
Escape from China — Matthew really felt the danger was coming after returning to Huizhou from Inner Mongolia. It was the beginning of 2018. His friend told him that people from the local Public Security Bureau were taking his picture to inquire about him in bars and places where there are more foreigners.
When he contacted Inner Mongolia, he had a bad feeling and decided to leave immediately, go to Hong Kong first, and then make further plans to avoid being barred from leaving the country. He simply packed his luggage and drove him to the border port in Shenzhen by his friend.
After Matthew posted his experience of escaping from China on YouTube in July 2020, the video has so far received more than 1.25 million views and more than 10,000 comments. Many netizens are grateful for him to leave China safely, and a few people question whether he did anything that violated Chinese regulations.
Knowing this information, Matthew believes that only returning to the United States is the safest. At that time, his wife was still applying for a green card, her passport was not with her, and she could not leave the country. He decided to stay in Hong Kong, waiting for news. About a month later, his wife finally got the green card and took the child out of the customs smoothly. They did not stay in Hong Kong for a while, but met directly at the airport and bought air tickets to the United States.
A few months after Matthew left China, the Canadian Michael Spavor who appeared in his video was arrested by China on suspicion of espionage. He and another Canadian named Michael Kovrig (Michael Kovrig, Chinese name Kang Mingkai) arrested by the Chinese authorities on the same charge are still in custody. Their arrest is believed to be related to the arrest of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou by Canadian police in response to an extradition request from the United States, but Beijing denies the relationship between the two.
After returning to the United States, Matthew continued to run a YouTube channel and currently has nearly 680,000 fans. Compared to the lighter life topics in the past, he began to turn to comment on Chinese political and social issues.
Again, i know more will have to be presented; but, surely the above must count for something. Demetrios1993 (talk) 03:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not nothing, but most people wouldn't consider 2.5 sentences to be "significant coverage". It's really just what is necessary to introduce the person the author is about to quote (to give significant coverage to another topic). Significant coverage by him isn't the same as significant coverage of him. And again, while that translated article might include biographical information, it doesn't look like a particularly reliable source. St★lwart111 14:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for all your answers Stalwart111. I will take note of everything you wrote in case of a re-evaluation in the future. By the way, i think there is a case for the reliability of the Voice of America article, but this can be brought up again in a future DRV, since it appears we have reached consensus at this point. Demetrios1993 (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Significant new information has come to light since the deletion (3, WP:DRV):
This particular use of {{flagg}} parameters is expensive and can only be used on a few hundred links per article. (H:TABLE)
This was the main argument for deleting the template (as other objections were addressed):
it has a WP:PEIS that is too large for a template intended to be used hundreds of times per article. [1]
Ultimately, this was a long time wasting exercise of replacing one template with another, doing essentially the same and with the same limitations, only less wieldy to non-technical editors (which makes me wonder whether this was really about deleting the template, or its author's contributions). — Guarapiranga☎ 00:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse This is utterly bogus reasoning, as {{flaglist+link}} was just as expensive as its replacement, and there's no reason to think that the participants at the TfD didn't know that, or would have supported keeping it if they had known. And there was a remaining unaddressed objection, that that consecutive links to a more general article and then a specific article is inferior to linking solely to the specific article, and that the use of generic link text like "more" is inadequate (from Bsherr's comment). The replacement with {{flagg}} that I performed does in fact address that objection, and the sole remaining objection is that I engaged in a long time wasting exercise of replacing one template with another. Well, it's not your responsibility to tell me how to spend my time. * Pppery *it has begun... 02:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also note that you've made no effort to discuss this with the closing admin (and in fact didn't even notify them of this DRV). * Pppery *it has begun... 02:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Closer's comment. I don't find this rationale compelling to overturn a near-unanimous (apart from the nominator) consensus. czar 04:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
