Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 April 28

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 2014 April 27
2014 April 29 >

28 April 2014

  • Amal Alamuddin – Relist at AfD. There's a lot going on here. It's possible the original AfD should have been extended, to get a wider consensus. It's possible that new sources have come to light which would have changed consensus even if the close was good. And, we seem to have a pretty good consensus here that the speedy re-delete wasn't well executed. Rather than trying to unravel every possibility, it seems like the cleanest thing is to just toss it back on the AfD pile. We'll get a new discussion and hopefully a clean consensus one way or the other, which will make all of these procedural questions moot. – -- RoySmith (talk) 02:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Amal Alamuddin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This page was deleted on 16 April following a discussion with one keep and two deletes (plus the nom). I'm not asking for a review of the 16 April decision – I don't know what state the article was at that time. However, someone recreated the article a few days later and this evening I have been trying to improve the coverage and sources, only to find it speedied by User:TJRC via Twinkle on CSD G4 grounds. Several editors queried this on the talk page, and in particular I asked an admin to check whether the current article was genuinely "substantially identical to the deleted version" as required by the CSD criteria. Given that the subject is now all over the news as the fiancée of George Clooney, I recommended that we have a proper deletion discussion rather than just speedying. Nevertheless Manning Bartlett (talk · contribs) (making an otherwise welcome return after a long absence) has deleted it. Could we please have some fresh eyes on the situation? Thanks - Pointillist (talk) 22:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that there is a debate on whether to delete this article or not. I just wanted to add my 5 cents and say that I read about her in the media today for her relationship with George Clooney and I was interested to know who she was, and went straight to wikipedia to find out. I am sure others will be curious to know who she is after seeing she may be married to George Clooney. Upon further reading, she has also done some very high profile work with Julian Assange, the Bahraini government etc. So I don't see how this article needs deleting, it is very useful to inform people who she is, even the main stream media is informing people who she is so clearly she is someone of note: http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/george-clooneys-fianc-amal-alamuddin-3464940 I believe those who want her deleted are doing it for political or ideological reasons rather than a sincere belief that precious wikipedia server space will be wasted on informing people of who this person is. Dawud Beale (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. The AFD was appropriate, and nothing's changed since then except the news reports that she and Clooney are engaged; but notability is not inherited, and being the fiancee of a notable actor does not make an otherwise unnotable (as determined at AFD) attorney notable. There was nothing in the re-created article (other than the fiancee news) not already discussed at the AFD. Disclosure: although I did not participate at the AFD, I agree with it, and as Pointillist points out above, I'm the editor who G4-speedied its re-creation. TJRC (talk) 22:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you compared the April 16th deleted article with the today-deleted version? I'd added several more reliable sources and I think covered notability better. I'm not saying that she is more than borderline, but I think this one should have gone back for another full discussion. - Pointillist (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of sourcing, it's a matter of notability. TJRC (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I entirely agree with that, of course, and I'm quite happy to concede that she's borderline. But I'm surprised that an experienced admin was prepared to push the button despite the linked talk page comments. The speedy deletion process is only intended for pages with "no practical chance of surviving discussion." In this case, I think a fresh deletion discussion would have been appropriate because (i) the original discussion had only four participants, (ii) the article and its sources were being actively improved, so a discussion period would have allowed for further development, and (iii) the subject was arguably becoming notable through the widespread press interest in her since her engagement was announced. It's a bit like Catherine Middleton: though she didn't become engaged until 2010, we've had an article about her since 2005 because of all the press interest in her. - Pointillist (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. Deletion that may sense before not necessarily make sense now. Notability of person changes with new events. Whatever rationale and discussion that lead to deletion of the older page should not automatically apply to the new page. It needs to be reevaluated without prejudice to past deletion. Note that WP:G4 is specifically for "a sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" so it may not be applicable to the new page. — Hasdi Bravo • 23:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: thanks for that. It might make sense to restore the deleted talk page, too, given that this is a review of process and {{Db-g4}} says Note to administrators: this template has content on its talk page which should be checked before deletion. FYI the currently-visible talk page content is irrelevant because it was added after the temporary restoration. - Pointillist (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy deletion. It is not a matter of notability, it is a matter of whether the version speedied was "substantially identical" (WP:CSD#G4) to the one deleted at AFD. And it was not (diff), was it? OK, BLP issues or something else could have warranted a speedy but I don't see anything requiring deletion and no such issues have been raised. Thincat (talk) 05:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - new, substantial sources are in the new version, which invalidate the previous deletion that appealled to WP:N. WilyD 09:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with WilyD. I think a key test of whether a fresh article is "substantially identical" is whether it uses the same sources. Where the fresh article uses quite different sources, as in this case, it is overreaching to use G4 to delete it. Restore but with leave to nominate it at AfD.—S Marshall T/C 11:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I didn't mean to imply that another AfD should be "forbidden", merely that the G4 should be overturned. (Which is not to imply that there should be another AfD either). WilyD 14:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy deletion. I agree with Dawud Beale that the person is of public interest and also looks notable for Wikipedia criteria (at least at first glance). Aside the connection to Clooney and aside representing Assange, there's also information on the web that she "has advised former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Syria and helped ex-Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko challenge her imprisonment." (emag.co.uk) The topic would merit a proper AfD discussion, possibly even a Keep. --Chris Howard (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I have reviewed the background on Amal Alamuddin and find that she meets the standards for being notable from the body of her work, without being the fiance of George Clooney. Anyone who has clerked for a Supreme Court justice is notable, as is her work as a prominent lawyer. Her resume is enough to consider her notable. Bracton (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Lots of people are interested became of her connection to Clooney but she is notable in her own right. For example, I included a link to a BBC News interview Alamuddin conducted on behalf her client Yulia Tymoshenko. The interviewer considered an expert on legal issues in Ukraine. Clooney was not mentioned once.Popeye191 (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean to vote Overturn. Valoem talk contrib 18:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, changed it! Popeye191 (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy. Clearly not substantially identical, and, given the extensive coverage she has received due to the reported engagement, there's a decent argument that the original reason for deletion, failing the GNG, may not apply. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the guy who tagged it for SPEEDY in the first place, and the sole Endorse !vote, it seems clear to me that this should be be closed as overturn under WP:SNOW. I'll then re-AFD it where it can be assessed as to whether the new report of being Clooney's fiancee is, despite WP:NOTINHERITED, enough to make her notable now. Because of the recentness of the prior AFD, I will notify each of the prior AFD's participants of the new AFD, regardless of their positions. I don't think this violates WP:CANVASS. (Based on the spiritedness shown here, I suspect the AFD will go down in flames, but I think it's worth an airing.) TJRC (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • @TJRC: this isn't an attack on you. The process is that either the admin who originally deleted or the admin who performed the speedy should have compared the as-deleted and current versions, taking into consideration the then-current talk-page comments. So far neither of them has commented on the review. The rubric for DRV says "A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days." So any close before 22:15, 05 May 2014 UTC would be a breach of procedure. - Pointillist (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, it never occurred to me that this might be an attack on me; but thank you for saying so. As I see it, this has been an open discussion with everyone respecting everyone else's point of view. But I recognize that my position is the smallest of minorities here, and despite the rubric of DRV, that's exactly why WP:SNOW exists: "If an issue does not have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process." WP:SNOW uses the deletion process as an example, but only as an example; it's applicable to any process, including DRV. TJRC (talk)!
There's no urgency AFAICS. Some contributors don't check their watchlists every day, and given that we are discussing administrative processes it is important to give all concerned a chance to comment. With this in mind I have now notified Crisco 1492 (who closed the AfD on April 16th) about this review. I've also reminded Manning Bartlett (who performed the speedy). We might as well let this discussion run its full course. I know that G4's purpose & wording have been debated on several occasions over the past five years, so this instance might be a useful case sometime in the future. - Pointillist (talk) 23:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have not had a chance to check the most recent sources (I literally woke up less than 20 minutes ago) but would like to note something for those simply !voting "overturn", rather than "overturn speedy": an AFD is judged on sources existing at the time, rather than those which become available at a later date. Yes, when that "later date" is so soon after the AFD closes it makes us look like a bunch of fools with our thumbs in the wind, but that doesn't change the fact that we have attempted to find a consensus. In this particular case, the single keep !vote was a bare assertion of notability without providing sources which prove this notability, whereas the delete !votes used this lack of referencing as to support their position. I will now take a look at the deleted version and compare it with the G4 deleted article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy - Based on a) the prose itself and b) the information contained within, this does not appear to be close enough to the deleted content to meet the G4 criteria. I still stand by the AFD, though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding so quickly. This wasn't trying to second-guess the AfD, of course – I didn't have sight of that version until DGG temporarily restored it along with the recreated article – it was specifically about whether the G4 speedy process had been followed correctly. - Pointillist (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. She's the subject of a 15 minute profile on BBC rRadio 4 [link here http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b042cq8p]. It says "she is an impressive figure in her own right. As a high-flying human rights lawyer she has defended the likes of Julian Assange of Wikileaks, former Ukrainian president Yulia Tymoshenko and the former head of Libyan intelligence Abdallah Al Senussi. She has also been an adviser to Kofi Annan of the UN on Syria and to the UN tribunal on the assassination of Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri." Geoffrey Robertson said he gave her an Exceptional Pupillage at Doughty Street Chambers because she was outstanding, and reckons she has the brilliance to become a Supreme Court Judge. 62.7.179.97 (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy deletion. It frankly seems absurd not to have an article on this person. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 06:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (I !voted above). In the BBC radio programme referred to above (can it be heard outside the UK?), as well as recording her extraordinary achievements, the programme commented on the deletion of her Wikipedia article (08:44). Some people here may find it a relief that the deletion was ascribed to her and her fiancé's wish for privacy rather than to the unsatisfactory nature of the notability guidelines or the waywardness of those trying to enforce them. Thincat (talk) 11:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 2014-03-31 (before)
  2. 2014-04-27 (after)
  3. 2014-03-31 (before)
  4. 1997-10-23 (long before)
  5. undated, but the linked pdf download is dated 2004-12-02 so (long before)
  6. 2014-04-05 (before)
  7. undated, but per line 317 in source HTML contextually before 2014-03-17 so (before)
  8. 2010 (long before)
  9. she's listed on the 2014-03-13 wayback snapshot so (before)
  10. 2014-04-27 (after)
  • Did I say "in the article"? No. I said "that I've seen". This includes sources not in the article, or brought up here. BBC interview: well after the AFD. Something I saw in the New Yorker about her being a hero: also after the AFD. Admittedly Google News isn't the best go-to for searches, owing to their tendency to delete older listings, but compare two pages of results for Amal Alamuddin before 8 April, 11 pages between 8 April and 16 April (the length of the AFD), and 16 pages of results since the AFD closed on 16 April. Doing a regular Google search would probably find similar results. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how any of that relates to CSD G4 being used to support deletion. Having been speedied by a non-admin who didn't take part in the AfD (and apparently didn't have a copy of the deleted article to compare with the new version) the 21:31, 28 April 2014 version was deleted by a normally inactive admin who apparently didn't check the versions. The relevant questions are: - Pointillist (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. In this case, should the article have been deleted on CSD G4 grounds? I'm hoping that the deleting admin (Manning Bartlett) will join the discussion on this.
  2. Before deleting an article nominated for CSD G4, what checks do we expect the admin to perform to decide that the speedied article is "a sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" of the deleted version? Should that admin be sanctioned in the event of failure to perform those checks?
  3. In future should CSD G4 nomination be available to all users, or only to admins who have sight of the deleted version, or only to the admin who closed the previous AfD?
  4. Is the current deletion review process appropriate for articles that have been speedily deleted? In particular, when a CSD G4 deletion is referred for review, do we need seven+ days to determine whether the article should have been speedily deleted?
  • Again, you are reading things in my comment that were not there. Did you not see me !vote to overturn the speedy deletion above, precisely because of the reasons you've indicated above? The speedy was incorrect. My concern was the AFD.
Let's retread. Thincat wrote "the programme [ascribed] ... deletion ... to her and her fiancé's wish for privacy rather than to the unsatisfactory nature of the notability guidelines or the waywardness of those trying to enforce them", which I understood as meaning the AFD (as "notability" is an AFD term; CSD uses "claim of importance"). I replied that the deletion happened (IMHO) because the majority of sources now available were not published at the time of the AFD/closing (and I again mentioned the AFD in my reply to you after you spoke of sources in the article now, hoping that it would be clear that I was speaking about the AFD). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ashamed to say my comment was more mischievous than analytical and shouldn't be taken too seriously. My !vote was serious, however (and it agreed with yours). Thincat (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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/2014_April_28&oldid=1138440019"