Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 March 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2024 March 28
2024 March 30 >

29 March 2024[edit]

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

Ms. Derek is an Emmy winner (and three-time nominee) [1] as well as a published author. She received significant press coverage around the time her memoir came out. [2] Her screenwriting filmography is extensive. I don't think this page should've been deleted when there are far less notable people with Wikipedia entries. Yours6700 (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore to draft. The appellant hasn't provided any valid reason to overturn or relist. However, seeing as there were only two participants at the AfD, WP:QUORUM was not met, and this should be treated as a soft deletion, so the page qualifies for instant REFUND. That said, even though the AfD was seven years ago, I still prefer to see it go through AfC, seeing as current sourcing is weak. Owen× ☎ 00:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don’t Endorse, due to tainted nominator and lack of quorum. -SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC). Endorse the AfD, old as it is. Restore to draftspace, where the appellant will have to learn about collecting quality sources and building encyclopedic content. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I recommend “restore to draftspace”, not having seen the article, so that it can be checked before returning to mainspace.
    No objection to overturning the AfD as tainted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to soft delete per OwenX as WP:QUORUM was not met. Article must be restored upon any reasonable request, such as this DRV. If it was not eligible for soft delete (e.g. if previously PRODed), then overturn to no consensus as QUORUM was still not met. Either way, I agree with OwenX that this should be restored to draftspace to allow interested editors to work on it first, as the sources are weak. Frank Anchor 16:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Semi-Overturn the AFD to a Soft Delete, as per OwenX. (In retrospect, there is now only one Delete, because the nominator is a blockedbanned sockpuppeteer.) There was no mention in the AFD of the Emmy, which meets biographical notability as a major award, or of the 1982 newspaper article, which is significant coverage. So the appellant should be able to develop a good draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - User:SmokeyJoe - I think that the appellant does know about sources. They have found two sources that will establish notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was unimpressed by the IMDb link. IMDb is never a reliable source.
    The second link looks ok. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    True about the IMDB. A link to the Emmy site, or to a newspaper reporting the Emmy, is needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dug this up, looks good. TLAtlak 14:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, we've got to overturn this. As SmokeyJoe Robert McClenon sorry Robert correctly points out, and there was no way for Kurykh to know this at the time, the nominator at that AfD isn't a good faith Wikipedian, but serial sockpuppetteer User:[email protected] using an obfuscated signature. The community banned him two years after that AfD but he was already showing the behaviours that got him banned in 2017. And the first boldface "delete" was the nominator. That leaves Beemer69's !vote, and although there's every indication that Beemer69 is a responsible, good faith Wikipedian, we wouldn't let a deletion stand on her !vote alone. I'm at overturn and restore as an irretrievably tainted AfD, with no prejudice against renomination by someone else.—S Marshall T/C 22:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per S Marshall but undelete to draft because, this being a BLP, and as I was able to determine via web.archive.org, there are no references, there's only an IMDb link, and the content might be outdated. The nominator in this DRV who is apparently interested in this article can do the minimum required work (or anyone else can) to ensure article space suitability.—Alalch E. 13:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - think this should be undeleted to draft, though, per the sourcing and BLP concerns raised above. SportingFlyer T·C 15:59, 1 April 2024 (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.
List of American Airlines destinations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was needlessly taken down due to a consesus being reached entirely composed of incredibly foolish & self contradictory logic. The very weak reasoning was that this would establish Wikipedia as a newsfeed, which is entirely untrue. If it were true, then the grand majority of information found on Wikipedia must also be removed, as that information is also constantly changing & its respective pages require heavy maintenance & consistent alteration to allow that information to be as accurate & up to date as possible. This list was factual information, an encyclopedia is where 1 is supposed to find factual information. Its suppression & removal from the encyclopedia is incredibly counterintuitive & calls to question the legitimacy of this platform, as all the information that should be easily accessible here is now for whatever reason doubted as having a place in an encyclopedia. The 2018 RfC should also not be invoked as reasoning to supress these articles, as that too was plagued with falsehoods & very weak & ill-informed rationale. This list was never in any violation of any Wikipedia guideline & should instantly be fully reinstated permanently immediately without question. Its suppression calls to question Wikipedia's legitimacy as an encyclopedia where information of all sorts is supposed to be easily accessible. That some readers may find this information irrelevant is not a reason to suppress this information, nor deprive other readers of this information who may find it useful for a variety of purposes. Readers who belive this is irrelevent to them should simply disregard it, but not call for its needless removal.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9bcc:7810:1406:d05e:1342:a28a (talk • contribs)

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/2024_March_29&oldid=1218135720"