Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 December 15

Benjamin M. Emanuel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) (AfD2)

Clearly improper closure of this deletion discussion by User:Jayjg. This offsite copy of the article indicates that all aspects of it were well-sourced, to reliable mainstream media sources, so the claims of WP:BLP violation do not seem to be well founded. This discussion ran for only three days, and was closed by a user who has an extremely strong POV on this and related issues, and has been caught engaging in off-site canvassing. The article should be re-listed, run on AFD for a full five days, and the discussion should be closed by an administrator who has no history of POV-pushing on Middle East related issues. *** Crotalus *** 18:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - DRV is not a forum for taking pot shots at the AfD closer. The closer justified the close after 3 days, asserting "this deletion page itself is becoming a violation of WP:BLP", and there has been no complaints about the early close for more than a month. There's no indication that Jayjg was involved in the Benjamin M. Emanuel topic prior to the close. The December 20, 2007 link you provided is a year old and is not canvassing. The digg.com linked article contained sources older than the 19 January 2007 AfD1, so it is not clear whether substantial new material justified recrating the article over AfD1. (Someone with access to the deleted items should be able to check this.) On the other hand, the digg.com article is written as a biography and the only potential BLP standout issue seems to have been the unsuccessful scheme, which was sourced to Fortune Magazine. I think that the close reasons of WP:N and WP:CSD G4 are the remaining viable basis for DRV review. -- Suntag ☼ 19:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Improper Deletion Comment It should be noted that there were an equal number of keeps to deletes, with one merge, so why does that equal delete?? Even one or two additional deletes would not be sufficient - especially when the Rahm Emanuel article talk page where Benjamin was a hot topic at the time was not notified. Moreover, this happened just at the time that Emanuel was receiving worldwide attention for certain comments he made and for his son's reaction to them. (Arab-American group blasts Emanuel’s dad; Obama top aide apologizes to Arabs). Finally my google alerts for Benjamin Emanuel at the time showed at least 10 blogs and alternate sites that criticized wikipedia for deleting this article just as he was getting so much attention. And what starts out in small blogs can end up in major publications. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no policy reason to let people on the talk page for Rahm Emanuel know about related AfDs. The presence of blogs criticizing Wikipedia for a deletion is not an argument to undelete either. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn- looking at the AFD, yes, there looks to be plenty of shenanigans afoot. Disregarding the people who came to load the vote, it still looked to me (at least), that it should have been a no-consensus, default to keep. 63.120.68.39 (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

clarification-the above post was me, FYI. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse a well-reasoned close which correctly references policy - in fact, multiple policies. The request rationale is ad-hominem and does not address the closure in any meaningful way. Keep votes were basically down to WP:WEHATEHIM, whihc is a really great reason for not having an article. Guy (Help!) 21:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• weak overturn One the one hand it is unlikely for me see this article being kept given that almost all of Ben Emanuel's marginal notability is connected to his son and a passing comment he made once. Thus, a separate article is not such a great idea. Moreover, the nominator's statement is full of unhelpful ad hominems and about as much of an assumption of bad faith as one can imagine. On the gripping hand, there's no reason this could not have gone for a full 5 day AfD and there are claims made that Emanuel had articles devoted to just him. There's nothing I see here that necessitated a shortened DRV. If there are serious BLP problems with people taking place in the discussion we can block and refactor as necessary. It is not a good reason to close a discussion early and certainly not a reason to when the consensus of the discussion is not clearly running in any direction. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Meets WP:N. Discussion should have run its course. There was no consensus for deletion at the time of closure. Tiamut^talk 21:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per Guy. Most of the keep votes on the original AfD had no rationales, and neither has the nominator for the DRV. He still doesn't appear to be notable, and if the main criteria was the Arab comment that he made and the fact that he happens to be Rahm Emanuel's Dad -- this isn't enough in order to merit an article of his own. Khoikhoi 22:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. Nothing was so pressing to justify guillotining the debate before its proper end time. Stifle (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion reading both AfD neither of them were improperly closed. The first Afd result was merge/redirect to Rahm Emanuel there was no dispute of the decision. The second afd was well attended with good numbers for both keeping and deleting, but afd is a discussion not a vote and significantly the keep side of the arguments were solely about transparency and not based on policy. The first AfD had/has many unfounded accusations from blogs the second afd had run 3 days before these same accusations started to appear. If we look into the dicussion it was an appropriate WP:SNOW closure because of WP:BLP issues being raised in the AfD where there was no policy arguments raised for retention. Gnangarra 22:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. I've said it before and I'll say it again: This is about the different between a general encyclopaedia and a genealogical project. Aspect of some notable person’s life (like a few sentences about a notable person’s parents) belongs in the article about that notable person, not in forked-off, separate articles. No information will be “hidden” that way. -- Olve Utne (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - I personally disagree with the notability conclusion, however the article as it stood was clearly in violation of the BLP policy. The article as it stood was well referenced... However, having just taken the time to go read all the references, the article was also misrepresenting what those references said. Merely throwing a reference on something and asserting that it's true is extremely bad behavior. Doing it with BLP information is unacceptable. If someone who was completely uninvolved with the prior article and has no biases either way on middle eastern or US political issues choses to recreate it, completely in compliance with WP:BLP and WP:RS, I would support allowing the article to be recreated. But I do NOT support the DRV request as it stands. The deletion was in compliance with BLP policy, and a number of accounts should in all rights be rapped over the knuckles for BLP violations in the article or in the earlier discussion. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per GWH. -- Avi (talk) 23:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - a reasonable and appropriate close, and BLP and canvassing concerns are well demonstrated. In particular:
  • All 7 cites in the November 10 03:53 version, were cites showing notability of the sons. WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTINHERITED - the fact a person may have notable children doesn't mean at all that they will be notable, and the father is only relevant in the context of being "that random person, who could be anyone, who is the father of these people".
  • Disagree with notability on the grounds of involvement in a "big pediatrics clinic in X city" - there are many clinics and hospitals. We aren't here to document the life of just anyone who ever happened to do so. Even "ran a big clinic in the area and had notable children" is far from enough.
  • Deletion is based on a review of valid points, not a count of "(non-)voters". (Apologies to various newcomers.)
  • An offhand opinion on someone's appointment, by that person's dad, does not make their dad of lasting historical encyclopedic interest. ("Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" and especially within that, WP:NOT#NEWS.)
  • Concur that the article is in essence, a coatrack. Both the Nov 10 03:53 and the (uncited) Nov 12 03:22 versions meet that description for me: Such family history as can be gleaned from the internet, plus the following claims: "Is the father of notable people", a claimed connection to a pro-Israel organization in the 1940s described by many as "terrorists", and "ran a pediatrics clinic in the US". Insufficient by far, and likely to be a significant BLP-vio. All padded out with BLP-problematic or irrelevant text like They had three sons within four years... named [child] in honor of a [second terrorist group member] who was killed... sent his sons to summer camp... insisted they take ballet lessons... [relative] arrested for civic protests X times. (These kinds of claims would perhaps be marginally relevant for a well known person and their family, but perhaps not. For this case, no real question.)
  Even if this were a borderline semi-notable BLP, we would still only include such information as was sourced from high quality sources and was directly relevant to the notability claims. As its entire "significant coverage in reliable independent sources" is non-existant (sourcing all seems to relate to others he is connected with, is all), and the claims of notability are tenuous at best and a coatrack at worst, then it's a good call for now, the AFD closer. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - the nominator (User:Crotalus Horridus) brings up 2 points which have already been refuted, and I will refute them again. Firstly, the notion that the closure was improper: This is a classic case of why an AfD isn't a poll, but a discussion. A thousand Wikipedians can vote keep, but in the end its their arguments that count, and in this discussion they brought up no arguments whatsoever (while the opposes did). Moreover, Jayjg's closure summary clearly outlined his reasons, which are completely valid, and exactly how an administrator should evaluate AfDs. The second claim is that the article was well-sourced so it can't be deleted. This is also false, because WP:N states that the subject should receive significant coverage, not mention 'in passing'. All of the sources given there indeed mentioned Benjamin only in passing, and talked about Rahm/Obama. Therefore, there was no indication at all from these sources than Benjamin the individual was notable. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - quite obvious BLP violation, also most probably don't pass Notability on his own right. Closure was correct. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Because his son is notable does not automatically make him notable WP:NOTINHERITED. It had serious BLP problems , the top hits are Wikipedia mirrors [1]. The majority of editors who opposed deletion are new editors and anons who didn't cite any policy to keep. Afd's aren't closed by counting the number of opposes and keeps. --Sandahl 00:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Factual Corrections since some people are not aware of how much media Benjamin Emanuel got as and after the article was deleted on two different issues. (Also, note this is a reproduction of the page on one of the critical blogs.)
  • That the fact Benjamin had been with the Irgun (many even calling it a terrorist group) was controversial in much of the world - and below are just non-Arab mentions: New York Daily News, Democracy Now, Reuters, New York Times, Agence France-Presse, Time Magazine blog, Foreign Policy magazine blog. (This information has been repeatedly deleted from Rahm Emanuel article as irrelevant.)
  • The story about Benjamin’s smear against Arabs already had four sources in the article. The fact of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee’s call for an apology and that Rahm Emanuel apologized for his father’s smear against Arabs also got lots of world wide media. A few sources were: Reuters (same as above), Jewish Telegraph Agency], American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee widely linked letter to Rahm Emanuel, Jewish Telegraphic Agency,Washington Times.CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Everything notable about Benjamen is already in the article about Rahm. As a general rule we do not write BLP biographies using news sources about other people. If living people are notable they have sources on their own right and neither of the sources in the blog version is about Rahm (expet probably Hebrew interview). Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever comment he got, that isn't how Wikipedia inclusion works. We look at a range of things - informal examples of these include, historic notability for encyclopedic purposes (minimal to none), "one event" issues or "generally only in the context of other more central matters" (high), scope and depth of "significant coverage" and whether this was in his own right or "because he has some connection to some other more encyclopedic matter" (little to none, and the latter), and so on. At the end of the day, "someone's dad made a comment on their appointment" or "son apologizes for it" just doesn't make dad's life and biography of "lasting historical encyclopedic value" or notable for Wikipedia, no matter how many times it's quoted. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion per Guy and George. Sarah 01:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Not notable in his own right. We don't have articles on people because they are appendages of other, more notable people. IronDuke 02:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The closer clearly had his opinion of whether it ought to be kept, but it wasnt the same as the consensus. I think I might even agree with him on the merits, but the consensus was still otherwise. We write bios using whatever RSs we have--we do not need sources dedicated primarily to the subjects, if they're notable; nor does it in ay way serve to denigrate the subject or anyone else, nor need it treat him unfairly, so there is no blp violation in keeping the article. whether they are notable, is up to the community, not an admin. Barring blp, the job of the admin is to enforce the decisions of the community. His discretion at afd is just to disregard those decisions which have no basis at al lin policy, not to decide what party expresses policy best. I do not think this partic admin should have closed this one, DGG (talk) 06:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - Closure was clearly out of consensus. The closer had concerns about many of the "keep" voters not arguing using policies and guidelines, in fact some, but not all, did cite policies or guidelines, particularly Claisen's very valid argument of this person's life story being profiled in the New York Times and Fortune Magazine. --Oakshade (talk) 06:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist - Firstly....I have not read the original article that was deleted (is it available somewhere I can view it?) and I came here via Rahm's page. My opposition of deletion is based on numerous mentions in the major media of my own country of either Benjamin alone with peripheral mention of his son (the controversial statement) or peripherally as part of several articles on his son which indicates some notability. Without reading the deleted article I doubt he is notable enough in his own right for an article of reasonable length but I believe there could be a good case made for merging it with his sons article (given it's own section). A new AFD should address the three options, delete/keep/merge and run long enough for a clear consensus. If the main reason for the previous early close is BLP then surely we have enough admins to moderate it? Wayne (talk) 08:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep deleted, AfD closed correctly and no new arguments for its existence. --fvw* 09:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - AfD closed correctly. Not notable and biographies should be made with content about the person and not with off-side references.
  p.s. Ad-hominem on the closing admin seems like an irrelevant argument for possible re-listing and as such, a (mild) violation of NPA. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Appropriate closure. The provided references only mentioned the subject in a transitory manner. There are valid and applicable BLP issues as well. Endorse deletion. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Appropriate close. In line with WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTINHERETED policies. The article would also become a magnet for Protocols-esque troublemakers who cannot get their crap shoved into the Rahm Emanuel article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:BLP1E states it applies to "essentially low profile" people, not ones who have been profiled by major media outlets. The issue of "troublemakers" getting "their crap shoved" into articles is a content issue, not a notability one and not a reason to ignore consensus when closing an AfD. That WP:NOTINHERETED "clause" comes from that nightmarish self-contradicting WP:AADD essay, not policy or guideline.--Oakshade (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly. He's "essentially a low profile" person. He's a nice old pediatrician who nobody heard of prior to his son's nomination and hasn't received any media attention after the nomination. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is patently incorrect. Many articles on Rahm before his nomination include mention of his father. Even though I didn't care, I knew years ago from media reports that he had something to do with Irgun which is possibly more relevant now due to Rahm's nomination. It is common and often relevant in articles to include family background to give some idea of the subjects political upbringing. Wayne (talk) 03:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's only "patently incorrect" because obviously someone heard of him prior to the nomination. But linguistics aside, he clearly was not notable prior to the nomination. Of course he was mentioned in his sons' bios. Every bio mentions parents. The argument that you're essentially making is that the parents of every notable person is also notable.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's saying that if sources cover the subject in the detail WP:N requires, INHERITED doesn't necessarily apply. INHERITED (to me) says that we shouldn't make articles for subjects solely due to their relation to other, notable subjects. It doesn't say anything about choosing to create an article for a notable (this is arguable, of course) subject who happens to be related to another notable subject. For example (though she is obviously notable where Benjamin is not), Michelle Obama has an article even though she would not if she were not the future first lady. INHERITED doesn't come in to the picture there. We can argue about the marginal notability of Emanuel, but I don't think that people are trying to advance that this article should exists solely due to the subject's relation to Rahm. Protonk (talk) 14:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that's what he's saying, but in any case the point requires a response. I don't think it's worth delving into the essay of WP:NOTINHERITED, but one thing forsure, INHERITED is not something that comes into play only when WP:N is not met. If WP:N is not met, there is nothing to discuss, it, he, or she is not notable. The application of INHERITED only applies to close calls. Obviously, there are people that are notable only because of their relation to other people, like Michelle Obama. But since she has received significant coverage, such as profiles of her, interviews with her, she is clearly notable. Benjamin is clearly incomparable to Michelle. There are no profiles of him and all the coverage he has received has only been as background information to one of his notable sons. Thus, at most the coverage he has received has been WP:BLP1E coverage. That, the WP:NOTINHERITED aspect, the WP:COATRACK nature of the article, and the IP attack at the afd discussion, combined to strongly support closing the discussion. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we understand each other very well. I wasn't seeking to compare Michelle Obama directly to Benjamin Emanuel, just to show the boundaries of INHERITED. We seem to agree on those. Where we diverge is in our assessment of sources on the subject. I agree generally that BLPs should only be written wherever there is real biographical coverage of s subject--meaning that wikipedia isn't stitching together disparate coverage to present a rough mimic of a biographical article. I think that is a good and sound inclusion criteria. Unfortunately I don't seem to be in sync with the community on that issues. I find that we tend to keep articles where the subject has been covered in some various degree regardless of the nature of the coverage--in other words, we don't wait for someone else to do a biographical sketch. Anyways, thanks for responding. Protonk (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's a thread here, just to throw in at least one WP:RS reason he is notable for himself is this from this 1997 New York Times article which states: Israeli father, now a 70-year-old Chicago pediatrician, who passed secret codes for Menachem Begin's underground. Iregun,... (sic spell) There are a lot of other allegations of what he was up to from non-WP:RS sources, but this makes it clear he was a trusted member and given the whole package, it makes it significant. Frankly, under these grounds for dismissals, all the articles I keep coming across about people who had some tangential relation to some terrorist group or just a charity some people claim is terrorist should be deleted and I assume everyone calling for this article to be deleted will call for those to be deleted too... CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. I don't see that there was the pressing need to close an unsettled discussion prematurely. I generally afford closers wide latitude provided process is followed. Here it wasn't (for good faith reasons of course), and I can not say with any confidence that the outcome wouldn't have been different if the discussion ran its course. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I don't see why this wasn't a "no consensus" close. As for the "we are an encycloepdia, not an XYZ repository", I've found that trying to dictate types of articles is about as useless as a fart in a windstorm. I'd be happy if we didn't have any pro-wrestling coverage, but we have gobs. Taking a stance for or against that type of content doesn't really do anything. WE should also be on guard for what seems to be hyper-paranoia with regard to BLPs. We have a very clear and very strict and well regarded BLP policy written down. It doesn't behoove us to invoke some higher leel of scrutiny than the policy presents simple because we feel we are doing "good". Doing good, for our part, means ensuring that each article meets our content guidelines and ensuring that no view (Even the view of Emanuel's lawyers over OTRS) is priviledged). Protonk (talk) 09:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist because the AfD did not run for the full five days and was not a snowball closure. If the AfD itself violated WP:BLP, there are other remedies available to administrators for that, such as blocks and protection. I have no opinion on the merits of the closure.  Sandstein  19:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion He is not notable in his own right.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion WP:COATRACK. Any useful info can be merged at his son's page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse a thoughtful and policy-based closure of a difficult AfD. A clearly explained rationale discusses the problem of weighing the strength of arguments, which is so important when determining whether a rough consensus exists. Jakew (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. The individual does not appear notable in his own right, and does not appear to have been the subject of any profiles or even numerous significant mentions. The AfD decision was correct - the discussion elicited strong reasons for delete and only weak ones for keeping. If we don't have good reasons for a biography then we should delete it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion reasonable close. Eusebeus (talk) 05:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse very well-reasoned close. The closing admin obviously took pains to document his decision exhaustively and should be commended. Upon further review, the ruling on the field stands. -- Y not? 06:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist - should have gone 5 days. If it had I would have endorsed deletion. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 04:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. This should never have been recreated--the first AfD came to a very clear conclusion. Furthermore, the article has been a persistent BLP problem of the most serious kind--real libel--whenever it has existed. Jayjg went above and beyond the call of duty in his careful close here. Chick Bowen 05:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist I've seen no justification for the claim that the AfD needed to be closed early for BLP reasons.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion As far as I can tell, pretty much all the "overturn" arguments are either inappropriate ad hominem attacks on Jayjg, or arguments that there was no consensus to delete. The problem is, we do not delete based on votes or consensus. Deletion should be guided by policy, and the purpose of discussion (including the poll) is to air the policy issues. It is for an admin to make a decision based on the content of the discussion, not the mere number of votes. Surely, if someone nominated for deletion an article on my next-door-neighbor and a hundred people voted to keep because "I like the guy!" we would still delete. Let's focus on the reasoning and not turn it into a numbers game. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think mistakenly characterizing the overturn arguments as you have with two broad brushes is a bit of ad hominen attack in itself. People can disagree over how policies should be applied, as they have here. Closing an AfD before any kind of consensus emerges cuts short that discussion unnecessarily. That kind of out of process close in itself should be an automatic basis for restoration, and relisting if that's what the community feels should be done. Tiamut^talk 02:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milić Jovanović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

Article was speedy deleted but Jovanovic is a former footballer who has played professionally in Portugal and SFR Yugoslavia [2]. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. While I'm aware that some users consider this an optional step, I would appreciate if the nominator could please explain why he omitted it (or, if there was a discussion that I missed, point it out)? Stifle (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I thought it was worthwhile bringing this to the attention of the entire community (particularly WP:FOOTY) as it seemed like a particularly unusual CSD. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  In future, I would recommend that you ask the admin who deleted the article. It can often resolve things more quickly, and is courteous and polite. You can always list it at DRV afterwards if the admin does not change his mind.

  Endorse deletion as a correct decision; nothing in the article asserted notability. However, as always, a speedy deletion is not a bar on an article ever existing under that title, and it is in order to recreate one that asserts notability (and hopefully proves it as well). Stifle (talk) 11:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: no discussion with closing admin prior to deletion review was attempted.

The entire contents of the deleted article are as follows:

Milić Jovanović (born February 10, 1966 in Belgrade) is a retired Serbian former footballer who played as a goalkeeper.

• Endorse own deletion; there is no assertion of notability in the article. No team name is provided, no mention of professional play in Portugal or any other country. No references were provided. Article lacks any context whatsoever to determine this is anything but a non-notable individual. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 16:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse A7. No assertion of notability, plus the usual concern about unsourced articles on living individuals, which should simply never happen. Guy (Help!) 16:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Jovanovic played in the Yugoslav First League for Red Star Belgrade and Napredak Kruševac ([3]) and passes WP:ATHLETE. Jogurney (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is a source which indicates he played in the Red Star's 1991 UEFA Champions' Cup final winning squad ([4]), a notable achievement. Jogurney (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. The article might have been deleted with a proper process, but current sources show he meets the guidelines. All they need to do is insert the new information and add references (like the ones provided here to back it up). (Copying the material provided here would break the article's contribution history). - Mgm|^(talk) 22:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So recreate it. Overturning this sub-stub with no claims of notability would be process wonkery for process wonkery's sake. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. There are no sources for a) date or place of birth, b) position played c) height, d) retired status (not fired, relegated to lower leagues, or died?) And there is nothing else there to restore. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - Evidence above of passing WP:ATHLETE. For the A7 advocates, playing for a national premiere league is an assertion of notability. Just because there wasn't a proper assertion of notability when deleted doesn't mean it can never be written with one if recreated. --Oakshade (talk) 06:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So your !vote, then, is actually: endorse deletion & allow recreation, right? Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 12:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact it was a matter of article improvement when an article of a notable person doesn't assert notability, not deletion.--Oakshade (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• technical Overturn WP:CSD#A7 didnt apply but really why, passes WP:ATHLETE section but not the basic WP:N trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability the two source are just trivial details, I'd like to see something other than the two profile pages with no detail to assert notability. Gnangarra 07:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The version I see has no claims to notability in it, so the A7 was procedurally correct. As for whether an article is suitable for inclusion, I don't know, feel free to create one and see. Keep deleted. --fvw* 09:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (and allow recreation) - Our notability threshold for ballplayers is rather and may I say notoriously low and the least one can expect that the respective importance is actually mentioned inside the article, especially after a proposed deletion points out the problem. Wouldn't it have been possible to address the underlying problem in the available five days stead of just removing the prod after five minutes? If this overturned we may as well exempt the the Footy articles from CSD. And I say this as somebody who even has occasionally converted IP contributed footy stubs on talk pages to articles instead of deleting them per G8. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article clearly needed work, but where it was was a better starting point than a blank page. I think, by even a high notability threshold, Jovanovic passes, as a European Cup winner [5]. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that he would meet notability guidelines and that something may look better that nothing. Nevertheless, you have asked (i) here for a review of the actual deletion itself and (ii) also say that it is of wider community interest. With respect to (i) I find the deletion correct for lack of clear indication of importance and with respect to (ii) any other outcome that isn't based on the evaluation of the article as it was against the CSD criterion might even send the wrong message here. No offense intended. --Tikiwont (talk) 11:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn with not even an iota of "blame" attached to the deleting admin. I'd probably have deleted it too. But article is a good basis to build on with new notability information. --Dweller (talk) 10:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Not that the deleting admin was to blame, but the best thing to do is bring it back so that the new info can be added.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The article did not assert notability at the time of deletion. This does not prevent anyone from writing a new version that does.  Sandstein  19:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as above. Eusebeus (talk) 05:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hayley williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

This page had a discussion back in 2006 that decided that the singer was not notable enough for an encyclopedia article in and of herself, and was thus merged into Paramore. The page is currently protected, meaning recreation is not possible at the moment. However, she has received an avalanche of media attention since then, and is deserving of her own article per WP:BIO.'\

At this point I am going to address the subject's notability completely on her own, ceding the logic that a member of a famous band is not worthy of an article.

Evidence of notability:

• Several articles on the subject in Rolling Stone; this does not include trivial references: [6] (Q&A) [7] [8] [9]
• Several articles on the subject on MTV's website; though I cannot prove it online, there have also been frequent reports on MTV and MTV News: [10] [11] [12]. These do not include more "trivial" mentions in which the singer is mentioned in the context of other famous artists but is not the subject of the article.
• Other articles that speak of the singer in the context of Paramore, yet give homage most especially to Ms. Williams: [13] [14] (New York Times, old)
• I encourage every editor here to look through the multitude of google news references [15], almost all of which are relevant hits.
• While I realize we do not use other Wikipedias as a prima facie indication of notability, they can be a good measuring stick, as editors there have had to make similar notability judgments. Articles include: es:Hayley Williams, lt:Hayley Williams, hu:Hayley Williams, nl:Hayley Williams, pt:Hayley Williams, fi:Hayley Williams. For an English singer, it seems remarkable that articles would exist on her in other languages with far less articles than our own, and yet not ours.

To be honest, I've been a been surprised and disappointed that I have to bring what I believe to such an obvious case to deletion review and that it could not be settled via a reasoned talk with the protecting administrator. Many editors have attempted to create an article and have discussed its noteworthiness on the talk page, but appear to have been shut out, based on an allusive (and ironic) allusion to consensus. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore article. Considering the overwhelming evidence presented here, surely there can be no arguments about her notability now. Bettia (rawr!) 12:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Overturn This is so obviously going to be restored that I suggest we get a couple more opinions and then just snow the thing. To use an extreme example, we don't redirect artists like John Lennon or Robert Plant to their band's articles and once an individual garners independent coverage of what they think or do its time for a separate standalone article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy overturn WP:SNOW. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 16:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy allow recreation - The original 5 July 2006 AfD was fine and was the present consensus. Also, Talk:Hayley Williams showed recent opposition to recreating the article, so it seems reasonable to request consensus at DRV to resolve the recreation issue. In regards to the DRV request, substantial new material not considered at the original AfD is sufficient reason to allow recreation. Also see Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. WP:SNOW. -- Suntag ☼ 17:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from protecting admin I need to respond to your comment of: I've been a been surprised and disappointed that I have to bring what I believe to such an obvious case to deletion review and that it could not be settled via a reasoned talk with the protecting administrator. I told you several times that there was an established consensus to keep it as a redirect. The "reasoned talk" that you desired needed to go there. I am not a one-man consensus. For me to say "Okay, you can make this article" would have been rejecting the consensus of other editors. Suntag, directly above me, sums it up pretty well, I'd say. I just think it's very interesting that I've suggested you take it to the article talk page several times now and you've yet to do that, either way (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but as we all know, consensus can change. If you are referring to this two-year old AfD as proof of the established consensus, it's time that we had a new discussion about this instead of people pointing back to this AfD. Things have changed in the past two years, and this individual's notability appears to have increased drastically since '06. Khoikhoi 22:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• right, but consensus hadn't changed yet. From what I saw on the article and its talk page, the consensus was still to keep it as a redirect. No discussion, as far as I can see, showed a changed consensus. Had Magog the Ogre pointed me to a consensus that said "let's reestablish an article," I would have more than obliged. either way (talk) 22:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• With all due respect, I did not mean to affront you; I really didn't. However, as I said above, I think an allusion to "consensus" as a redirect is a little silly when, by my count, there were 8 people suggesting a separate page, and 2 against it. Given these odds, I didn't think my chances of changing the outcome were high. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy restore per all of the above. Khoikhoi 22:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore. She's cute and makes nice music (and is now notable). --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore, is notable (now, at least) per sources presented above.  Sandstein  19:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]