Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 December 22

Save_Sibelius (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page was originally a paragraph in an article being constructed in Sandbox about the activist and musician, Derek Williams. It was migrated in an attempt to reduce the size of the Williams article, despite adding to his notability. However, the article was nominated for speedy deletion on the grounds that it was not a notable campaign. After that, there was one vote to Keep, one to Merge to Sibelius (software) and another to Merge to Sibelius Software, so it’s hard to see this as ‘consensus’ to Merge to Sibelius Software (different page to Sibelius (software)). Summary of the 4 votes:

• Speedy deletion
• Keep
• Merge to Sibelius (software)
• Merge to Sibelius Software

No option received more than one vote, so the current consensus is 3/1 not to erase the content. Another option is to reintegrate the content back to the Derek Williams article, and see what fate that suffers. If the entire Williams article ends up being deleted along similar lines, then mention could still be made of the Save Sibelius campaign under the articles: orphaned technology, abandonware, planned obsolescence, asset stripping Chrisdevelop (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the OP seems to have miscounted: two people wanted it merged to Sibelius Software (the company that makes the software), one person wanted it merged to Sibelius (software) (the software itself), the nominator presumably wanted it deleted and the OP wanted it kept. That's three people supporting a merge, one person opposing it, and the nominator who didn't explicitly oppose a merge (the nomination is compatible with the arguments being made for the merge). That looks like pretty clear consensus for a merge and the exact target can be discussed elsewhere if necessary. Hut 8.5 10:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"the exact target can be discussed elsewhere if necessary" - is there a link to "elsewhere"? The 3rd possible Merge option not yet discussed is to repatriate the article to its original place in Chrisdevelop Sandbox article about Derek Williams. It was originally snipped from there to reduce the article's length. Two more snips were planned, depending on the fate of this one. Obviously if the orphaned articles keep getting erased, their original function in supporting the notability of the subject of the article is erased too. Chrisdevelop (talk)

• Discussions about where to merge the content can be done on the article talk page or on the talk page of the target article. Hut 8.5 15:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Procedural close  While WP:Deletion policy states that content discussions belong on a talk page, the OP here is asking permission to edit.  Permission to edit is granted in the fundamental principles.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, but.... First, it's not clear that you ever talked with the closing admin, so @Drmies: alerting him now to make sure he's aware. Next, it's not quite clear what action you're proposing instead of the stated consensus. If you're proposing a better merge target, I doubt anybody would have any objections if you just went ahead and did that on your own. You mention a Derek Williams article, but Derek Williams is a WP:DAB page. Could you provide the exact title of the page you have in mind? -- RoySmith (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith:An alert was placed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2A02:C7D:2E89:C700:7192:9A5A:91F5:113 at the same time as posting this review request.

The Derek Williams (musician) article has been being worked on for some time in the Chrisdevelop Sandbox, however its creation has stalled because the article has become unwieldy with a large number of links, citations and photographs. Rather than risk having the entire article deleted under initial Review, it was decided to try migrating certain paragraphs to separate articles in an attempt to reduce its length. The paragraphs intended for sequestration, such as Save Sibelius do contribute to the notability of the biographical subject, however it was felt a link to such migrated material reposted in its own article would not ipso facto disestablish notability, unless the content were erased or masked within another page, as will happen as a consequence of the vote to Merge. Since the Save Sibelius article has been deemed to be not interesting in its own right, the question is now whether the concomitant material would better serve its incipient purpose supporting the putative notability of Derek Williams by being repatratiated to the Sandbox, and just accept the risk that the entire Derek Williams (musician) article may itself suffer a speedy deletion once it is submitted for Review.  :Chrisdevelop (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse -- a reasonable close and in line with consensus. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So to be clear, it's ok to repatriate the Save Sibelius article with the Derek Williams article in the Chrisdevelop Sandbox in line with the consensus to Merge and the comments from talk and RoySmith? If this has been understood correctly, then the article will be cut from its present site at Save Sibelius, and reintegrated with the Derek Williams (musician) article currently in preparation, and thereafter, Save Sibelius will presumably be erased by Admin. The fact that there are two pages so similarly named ought of itself to be the subject of discussion. The Sibelius (software) page could be renamed "Sibelius (scorewriter)" for greater clarity.

• Relist Two votes to merge and two votes for totally different things dosent sound like a lot of discussion. Consensus on Wikipedia is not merely a tally of votes but based on policy based arguments and their weight. ElonTesla (talk) 02:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• See SPI.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ElonTesla: Thank you. Certainly, there are very few comments and a small number of votes. Is there agreement to relist for further discussion? Also alerting closing Admin: @Drmies: Chrisdevelop (talk)

• Endorse I was considering nominating merging the software and the corporation together seeing as how one exists only to produce the other, but I presumed that suggesting that in the middle of the other discussion would be held disruptive. Three articles, however, are at least one if not two too many. Anyway, the proof by excessive verbiage discussion made it difficult to tell how many respondents there were; @Power~enwiki: it would be useful if you chimed in. Mangoe (talk) 22:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mangoe: At https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sibelius_(software)#Proposal_to_merge_with_Sibelius_Software there was a proposal to Merge the two, but this was opposed, and discussion fizzled out. That was 2012-13, so perhaps this should be reconsidered. FYI, discussion about 'Save Sibelius' campaign has been redirected by Drmies back to the article's Talk page. Chrisdevelop (talk)

Well, I would have suggested the reserve merge, since the software is largely what anyone cares about.

And could you PLEASE indent and sign your responses correctly? Mangoe (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

copied over from article discussion page at the request of @RoySmith:

@Drmies:@Cryptic:@Power~enwiki:@Hut 8.5:@RoySmith:@K.e.coffman:@Unscintillating:@Mangoe:@Raymond3023:@MBisanz:@Sandstein:@Rusf10:@ElonTesla:

Discussion was previously sent to Deletion Review by Cryptic.

At https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Save_Sibelius, ElonTesla voted to Relist. So now we have the following 12 votes:

* Speedy Delete power~enwiki (grounds: "Not a notable advocacy effort")

* Keep Chrisdevelop (grounds given by article creator demonstrating notability)

* Endorse Hut 8.5 (grounds: "...clear consensus for a merge and the exact target can be discussed elsewhere if necessary.")

* Endorse... but RoySmith (grounds: "not clear that you ever talked with the closing admin... If you're proposing a better merge target, I doubt anybody would have any objections if you just went ahead and did that on your own.")

* Endorse K.e.coffman (grounds: "in line with consensus")

* Procedural close Unscintillating (grounds: "Permission to edit is granted in the fundamental principles.")

* Merge to Sibelius Software x 2 Mangoe and Raymond3023 (grounds: "...content can still be useful")

* Relist MBisanz (grounds: "to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.")

* Relist Sandstein (grounds: "We need comments by people other than Chrisdevelop.")

* Merge to Sibelius (software) Rusf10 (grounds: "sources don't support its own article")

* Relist ElonTesla (grounds: "Two votes to merge and two votes for totally different things dosent sound like a lot of discussion. Consensus on Wikipedia is not merely a tally of votes but based on policy based arguments and their weight."

If Relist on the grounds given above by ElonTesla is not granted, then permission to do the following is requested:

1. Rename Sibelius (software) to 'Sibelius (scorewriter)' to remove confusion with Sibelius Software.

2. Merge Sibelius Software with Sibelius (software) to create 'Sibelius (scorewriter)'. Chrisdevelop could carry out this work.

3. If Merge still stands for the Save Sibelius article, then change the target so as to repatriate the contents of Save Sibelius to the Chrisdevelop Sandbox article currently in preparation, on the grounds that it is more useful in that location. Chrisdevelop (talk)

@Cryptic:@Power~enwiki:@Hut 8.5:@RoySmith:@K.e.coffman:@Unscintillating:@Mangoe:@Raymond3023:@MBisanz:@Sandstein:@Rusf10:@ElonTesla: A proposal to Merge and Rename has been placed in both Sibelius Software and Sibelius (software) articles. Please consider Endorsing the most recent merger proposal. Chrisdevelop (talk)

• Overturn to delete, or failing that endorse the redirect, per WP:COITALK. And stop fucking pinging me and falsely claiming I said things I didn't. —Cryptic 02:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please identify the COI, and clarify what you believe was falsely claimed? Chrisdevelop (talk)

I'm on vacation and don't plan to comment on this until about 0000GMT on January 5 (if it is still open). I hope you can resolve this without me. I considered this a fairly standard AfD nomination from the NPP queue and have no further comment about any of the merits. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yume Miyamoto (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I actually have no opinion if the subject is notable or not, consider this Deletion review as procedural and a test for consensus. The article was deleted after a deletion discussion, which concluded that: 1. it was unclear if she met WP:ENT, and 2. she appeared to lack coverage in reliable sources. This discussion is to discuss if either of those still apply. She appears to have had two main roles: as Megumi Amatsuka in GJ Club and as Rumia Tingel in Akashic Records of Bastard Magic Instructor. It appears she was also the dub actress for Lilo in the Japanese dub of Lilo & Stitch. Question: are those three main roles (one anime and one dub) enough for her to pass WP:ENT? In addition, I looked around for Japanese sources, and I found some, such as this interview together with the other cast members of Akashic Records, and others like this link and this link; however, it seems that most sources I could find are about her roles as Rumia. Is the coverage available good enough for article recreation to be permitted, or is Miyamoto still a case of WP:TOOSOON? A discussion with the deleting admin was inconclusive, so DRV it is. Note that the AfD nominator was since topic banned from deletion discussions as a result of two ANI discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The topic ban is irrelevant, as this was a well-considered nomination.  The AfD lacked a QUORUM, so is also not determinative.  I see no reason not to get a WP:REFUND.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She did not meet WP:ENT back when AFD was called up in 2016. Her role in Akashic Records of Bastard Magic Instructor happened in 2017, so that's new information, and could help her meet WP:ENT. Recommend she move to draft so that the sources can be cultivated. It's not clear which Lilo she was for the Lilo & Stitch series. TV show? direct-to-video? and whether that was an important role. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AngusWOOF: Her ANN page suggests that she was Lilo in the Japanese dub of the TV series. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 21:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion review actually has nothing to do with the topic ban, I only mentioned it in the interest of disclosure. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 21:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse -- the sources listed are indicative of WP:TOOSOON: interviews and the like. The subject does not meet WP:ENT and restoring the article would not serve a useful purpose. Keep deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse reposted several times solid delete opinion. Schracq (talk) 00:01, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• See SPI.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP:ENT #1 keeps on being a troublesomely worded SNG, it would be my continued preference to see notability established in such cases only by direct, GNG-quality evidence. That aside, I'm in agreement that there's not a WP:QUORUM here (and I'd feel that way short with or without the nominator's topic ban.) --joe decker^talk 19:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to soft delete or draft as there was not a quorom with the nom being topic banned Atlantic306 (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-followed Instagram accounts (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page was deleted despite numerous sources showing it is notable. The closing admin ignored the sources listed in the Afd in their closing of the discussion, as well as the thread of discussion, especially in the comments, which looked to me like the keeps came out on top. It was argued without much rebuttal that the list would be easy to maintain. There were issues with delete arguments brought up that were not addressed. He/she also ignored the argument by some that the list could be shortened. (Indeed, the admin did not close with an explanation) List of Most-followed Instagram accounts is one of the most popular pages on Wikipedia. There are sources that show the list is notable as it was: [1] [2] Subuey (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closer's comment: The request is malformed; the correct links are List of most-followed Instagram accounts and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-followed Instagram accounts. Please refer to my comments at User talk:Sandstein#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-followed Instagram accounts. Sandstein 21:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - per Sandsteins explanation on his talk page. Sergecross73 msg me 22:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse -- the discussion was well attended and the consensus was clear. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to No consensus – The close looks like a rushed decision bordering on supervoting. Even in the explanation on their talk page, the closer failed to analyze all arguments for and against deletion. There were actually 6 editors arguing Keep -- the closer miscounted only 4 -- (Subuey's entry was not labeled Keep but was clearly in support), while 12 argued Delete (including the OP). In addition Pontificalibus remained neutral but criticized the Delete arguments in two well-reasoned comments. The closer justified their assessment by stating Only one "keep" opinion argued with sources, which is wrong:
  • I wrote The list itself is sourced, not OR
  • Galobtter wrote (links to 6 sources) documents the set in clearly reliable sources
  • PhilKnight wrote Keep per Galobtter which was dismissed by Sandstein as Per X […] very weak arguments – Actually "per Galobtter" surely means "I've seen the sources exhibited by another editor and I'm persuaded the list is well-sourced." What amount of extra work did Sandstein expect from PhilKnight?
  • Timtempleton wrote the compilation source does the heavy lifting for us and There are plenty of sources substantiating this ranking as notable. Passes WP:GNG.

A fair reading of the discussion indicates no consensus. — JFG ^talk 08:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn unless Sandstein can articulate a valid delete rationale present in the discussion, something that was not done in the closing comment nor in the later justification on their talk page. Most of the delete votes seem to be based on spurious reasons such "impossible to keep up-to-date" yet Sandstein appears to be basing the close on a simple numerical count of such votes.--Pontificalibus (talk) 08:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• IMO many of the delete !votes (at least 4 of them) can be discounted as they argued that the list would always be out of date, which is not in the realm of being a delete criterion. Looking at the other delete !votes, many were weak; and the nom also said that he wouldn't object if it was trimmed to the top 10, and another said that a top 10 could be in the instagram article. Enough for no consensus. Agree with pontificalibus that a valid delete rationale needs to be given. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. Most of the arguments in the AfD were either very weak or rebutted. The closer is right that a lot of the Keep arguments were weak (although "per X" is fine if X advanced a valid argument), however the Delete arguments were weak as well:
  • The main argument for deletion was the fact that the article is referenced to primary sources. This is a valid argument, but it was rebutted by people who pointed to secondary sources which could be cited for this content. Whether such sources were in the article at the time isn't relevant, as AfD is not cleanup. This argument was rephrased in BLP terms, I don't think that makes any difference. There wasn't really any attempt by the Delete side to argue that the sources were all unsuitable.
  • Several people opined that the content wasn't suitable for an encyclopedia, describing it as "listcruft", "trivial", "not an encyclopedic topic", etc. These are subjective personal opinions and as such can be easily rebutted by people stating that the content is suitable for an encyclopedia. Certainly we have a lot of articles on similar topics.
  • Several people said that the list changed too often to be kept up to date. Again I think this is subjective personal opinion, and this fact doesn't prevent us from including many list topics (e.g. List of countries and dependencies by population).
  • Quite a few people said that they would be happy with the list if it was trimmed to the first X entries, or merged somewhere else. These aren't arguments for deletion, as AfD isn't cleanup. Deletion is for issues which can't be fixed through normal editing.

Now there were plenty of dodgy arguments on the other side, such as the claim that the article should be kept because it gets lots of page views, but in order to get an article deleted at AfD the burden is on you to demonstrate that it isn't suitable for the encyclopedia, and I don't see much of that in the AfD. Hence no consensus is probably best. Hut 8.5 15:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy on request  There is a solid consensus here that the topic is not appropriate for multiple reasons when presented as current news.  However, it was also shown that with restructuring, the topic can satisfy inclusion requirements.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Already to the article "as of xyz date" was added. That should be enough. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that implies that we won't have a stable article over time.  Wikipedia is not a newspaper.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It'll be mostly stable, being counts in the millions. It won't change too much over 6 months, especially if shortened. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm fine with shortening, but how about lock it down and leave it and add another table once a year?  Unscintillating (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Vacate close  Upon further review, I see that the point has been made that the closer was unable to explain why the article was deleted.  The closer implies that there was a policy-based keep argument, and one keep !vote is all that is needed to keep an article.  The only possible conclusion is that this was an improper !vote count.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no-consensus. Rereading the discussion there clearly was no real consensus to delete-- too many of the delete arguments there (and atthe discussion here) were so incorrect that they amount to DONTLIKEIT, such as the discussion about a stable article. DGG ( talk ) 22:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as a no consensus I stand in direct agreement with those above me. ElonTesla (talk) 02:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• See SPI.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to NC--One of the rare bad-closes from Sandstein.Winged Blades^Godric 06:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The closer's interpretation of the outcome of the discussion was within the permissible range of outcomes, given the level of participation. bd2412 T 18:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to NC - the oppose arguments were primarily IDONTLIKEIT. This is a clear NC. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]