- Deal or No Deal (United States) models (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I would have asked the deleting editor to undelete, but unfortunately he is on a WP:Wikibreak. I have several issues with this deletion.
First: only two editors (in addition to the nominator) commented on this.
Second: One of the editors commented that "In 2007 this article could probably be tolerated. In 2011 when the show is long canceled ... it really isn't needed anymore". The response to that is Notability is not temporary
Third: Another editor used the technique of Framing (social sciences) to inject the motivation behind any editor who would write about this. This is an unacceptable argument.
Fourth: The article was essentially a list of all the models who appeared on the show Deal or no deal. The show no doubt passes notability, and therefore a list of all the models on the show is certainly legitimate. Since the list is long, it does merit splitting into an independent article.
Fifth: As for lack of verifiability, and/or secondary sources, it's all in the IMDB.
Sincerely, However whatever (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The deleting admin was editing yesterday. Their user page says on a break until the 24th, this was deleted a couple of months back. I'm not sure why posting a message to the admin and seeing if they'd respond or waiting a week would make much difference. To address your points:
- Only three editors commented - AFD has no quorum, it was listed the correct time so anyone else was free to comment.
- I guess the temporary notability issue depends on perspective. Was it truly notable then, or merely a lot more people cared about trying to argue it was? However as per your point (4) you don't seem to suggest this is notable in it's own right, it's a split out from the main article, editorial judgement based on the recentness of the events to determine level of detail is fine, so deciding now that the level of detail is too much is actually fine.
- That wasn't their only argument. As to how much weight the closer took from that, we can't tell since they weren't asked. If you ignore that statement the consensus would still have been to delete.
- As for point (2) you seem to be conceding there is no standalone notability for this, so it's not unreasonable as an editorial decision to trim the content. As to if it's legitimate to include this level of detail in an encyclopaedia in the first place on the back of the shows notability, I'd suspect not, it's not what I'd go to a general purpose encyclopaedia for and I doubt many others would.
- IMDB is often an unreliable source, without seeing the article and what it covers it's difficult for me to see in this case.The lack of sourcing outside of that would further support the already stated that the subject isn't notable. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 06:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at WP:LISTPEOPLE, the list meets the criteria for an article. Virtually all the models have Wikipedia articles (i.e. they are notable). However whatever (talk) 06:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That gives criteria for people who can be included in a list, not if the list itself should be included... --82.19.4.7 (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No. The section is broader than just "people who can be included in a list". It is a subsection labeled "Appropriate topics for lists". However whatever (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You pointed to a specific section saying it meets the criteria because the models mostly have articles, I responded to that. The fact that the section above where you pointed gives some fairly broad and vague advice about lists doesn't change that. The guide doesn't say that the members being notable doesn't mean a list is *always* warranted. What it does say is vague and open to quite a lot of interpretation, those commenting in the AFD clearly didn't believe a list was required. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 06:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. Three independant !votes to delete is good enough (unless you can refute their reasons)
- 2. While that was poor reasoning, it is probably true that fancruft kept in 2007 during the life of the program (probably in the hope of third party commentary arising) would be deleted years later if there is still no suitable secondary sources, and also because our inclusion criteria has tightened with time.
- 3. It is true that User:Tarc is not always an outstanding diplomat, but if you overlook his first sentence, he provides an acceptable deletion rationale.
- 4. Was there any commentary (from a secondary source, even if not independant) that would justify keeping the material via a merge to Deal_or_no_deal? If so, you might succeed in getting the page undeleted and converted to a redirect so that you might attempt to merge the material.
- 5. IMDB is not considered sufficiently reliable for Wikipedia. It is on a par with Wikipedia, and sometimes references wikipedia, and Wikipedia should never be considerd a reliable source.
- 6. If the models have their own articles, then they should be mentioned at Deal_or_no_deal. If their section expand sufficiently, get (ie. wait for) consensus there for a spinout article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. Yes, I speculated on the motives of someone who creates an article on something so pruriently trivial. But the valid deletion rationale stands; there is no coverage in reliable sources for these people. You point to other models having Wikipedia articles? If we're talking about the Gisele Bundchen class of model, sure. I'm sorry, but 50 anonymous girls pointing to a briefcase of fake money every week is not in the same ballpark of runways and magazine covers. Tarc (talk) 19:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. TPH's nomination statement and Tarc's !vote both provide valid guideline-based reasons to delete this, and nobody contested the deletion, so the closing admin was correct. If enough suitable sources that weren't discussed in the AfD were found there could be reason to recreate this, but nothing has been presented so far and I can't find anything by searching. A list could be added to the main article if each entry can be verified, but given the weak nature of the deleted article it might be better to start from scratch. In this case a redirect wouldn't be necessary as attribution would be to the user who writes it into the main article, and given the nature of the title I don't think it's a plausible search term. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist. which is what the closer should have done in the first place. Of the delete arguments, essentially every point raised was not according to policy (1) (nominator) . overly-detailed ( a reason for editing, not deletion) fancruft (meaningless) Not a singlet source to be found (no evidence they looked) I can't think of something that would source it (ditto) Way too much trivia. (unsupported opinion, and a reason for editing not deletion). (2) (Nate) in 2007 tolerable, , in 2011 when it has been canceled , not/ (anti-policy, notability is permanent.; an encyclopedic is an historical record & whether a show is current is irrelevant). interest only to those who care that in episode 12 a light went out etc.(False. This level of detail is simply not in the article). No one actually care to look up the names (ITDOESNOITNTERESTME, and denigrating those it does by calling them "fanboys")too long and dull (a reason for editing & in general what we need are longer, not shorter articles, and 99% of the writing in Wikipedia is too dull). In't needed any more (we write forthe record, and this is the sort of attitude which discards all npon-current material & turns Wikipedia coverage of popular culture into a tv guide) (3) (Tarc) " I'm trying to restrain myself from commenting on the type of person that would know this much detail about background eye candy in a game show, much less come here to write about it. " (pure abuse, for which the proper response should be a ban from AfD discussions) There are some interviews to be found online, "but little that addresses the group of models as a whole" (that's why this is a combination article, bringing the small amount of material on each together. This argument denies the validity of all combination articles, which is not policy). "other than on NBC -primary source (primary source is the right source for detail). (4) (Closer,) no arguments at all. (Incorrect close, when there are unrepresentative or invalid arguments, the only correct course is to continue the discussion. [and, btw, I couldn't care less about his sort of article or even this sort of topic, but it does not bother me that other people do, either in the RW or on Wikipedia ) DGG ( talk ) 21:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, yes, I know how it would warm the cockles of your heart to ban someone with an different opinion from AfDs. If you have the guts to try, then by all means take your best shot. Like most of your ARS-fueled arguments, this is as flawed as ever. We don't use primary sources to establish notability, that is Wikipedia 101. We are talking about a group of models, a group which is not addressed by or covered by any reliable source. Your simplistic "someone out there finds the topic interesting, so who not keep an article on it?" argument given in just about every deletion discussion you participate in is getting a bit tiring, but I don't call for your banishment. Man up DGG, and learn to deal with opposing points of view. Tarc (talk) 22:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it was you who originally commented on individual motives. I recognize I am not going to win every argument, but as for wanting to keep every article, I have so far deleted 13,841 of them, ranking 96th among all non-bot admin accounts. [1] DGG ( talk ) 20:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, although I must say that I am rather unhappy with Tarc's comment in the AFD: "I'm trying to restrain myself from commenting on the type of person that would know this much detail about background eye candy in a game show, much less come here to write about it." This is not simply an "opposing point of view" which DGG or others should just "man up" and "learn to deal with", but a poorly veiled personal attack against the author of the page. My conclusion is to endorse however, simply because I see no coverage or reliable sourcing which gives any notability to the DoND models, and that with a unanimous AFD, closing as a "delete" is a reasonable course of action. DoND is undeniably a notable game show, but the people who actually open the briefcases are very peripheral compared to the contestants. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist, more or less per DGG. The nomination rationale is plainly defective, and based on clear factual errors. As was quite properly reaffirmed in yesterday's "Ravians" DRV, when we're dealing with a list-type article where the inclusion criterion isn't negative or otherwise contentious, it's OK for sourcing (for notable entries) to be included in the primary articles rather than the list article. And the nominator's statement that "I can't think of something that would source it" is without merit, particularly since a cursory Google search turns up this page [2] which together with its subpages verifies most of the basic information involved. Moreover, I spot-checked about half a dozen of the unlinked names (based on the copy mirrored here, and came up with GNews sources verifying every one of them. So the "no sourcing" argument, the only potentially valid reason for deletion, fails on its face. Some of such GNews hits which mentioned the TV show were quite recent, indicating that the show has embedded itself in popular culture and reinforcing the notability-is-not-temporary principle that should have negated one of the delete !votes. The other delete !vote was grounded mostly in IDONTLIKETHAT rather than policy. So we were left with a flimsy nomination and an unsatisfactory discussion, which should have resulted in a relist. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist per DGG and Hullabaloo Wolfowitz's comments and sources, given the sparse discussion in the AFD itself. TJRC (talk) 03:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn/Relist-Should have been relisted in the first place. Almost no discussion, and the reasons given for deletion range from weak to meaningless.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. While not the finest debate ever, there was a clear policy-based decision in the nomination: "Not a single source to be found." Both of those supporting deletion also found there to be no sources, and despite the unfortunate broadside which Sjakkalle deals with admirably above, Tarc's comment "little that addresses the group of models as a whole" demonstrates a clear understanding of the sourcing requirements for an article. There was no need at all to relist this, there is no quorum required in deletion debates. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment as closer. Apologies for being slow to arrive at this debate, I was AFK photographing in Montana and Alberta. My rationale was, as many have surmised, largely weighted on the sourcing comment in the nomination. As a result, any finding here that sources (such as the Gnews sources alluded to by HW) undercut the sourcing argument would seem to me to argue toward relisting or recreation. --joe deckertalk to me 16:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
