Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 June 5

Joseph Kevin Bracken (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I think this was a poor close as it's clear there was no consensus. The closer completely ignored that someone found info as to why J. K. Bracken himself was notable, including the detail from the book about his son that there was considerable reference to him in Irish newspapers (which I also found via britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk), understandable as the co-founder of the Gaelic Athletic Association, in addition to being a monumental sculptor[1] and political figure in Tipperary. The closer's rationale was that people saying it should be deleted were citing Wiki guidelines on notability by inheritance, but that's only relevant if the subject is not otherwise notable. It appears they failed to actual look for any reference to him being notable himself and the closer did not take this possibility into account. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a three year old AfD. Does a review have any point? Standard procedure is that anybody can create a new version of the article, as long as it addresses the issues raised at the prior AfD. Go forth and edit. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see why a deleted article on someone who died 100+ years ago should have to be entirely recreated. He has not increased in notability since the AFD that (I feel) was inappropriately closed as delete. The reason the article was nominated was the mistaken assumption that his notability came from his son. A person who bothered to actually look him up found info on his own notability yet was ignored. That's a faulty close. I am happy to improve the article, but the people who originally created and worked on the article should have their work restored. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The participants in the AfD found the sources wanting. If you're willing to find better sources, I'd certainly have no objection to userfying the existing text so you can work on it and then move it back to mainspace once you've added better sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete due to new information. The AfD was not about a deceased outstanding jurist. [2]. Usually try WP:REFUND for things like this. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was not about a deceased outstanding jurist, either. And while the source you (both) link is, it contains all of a dozen words about this person. There's nothing in the nomination here that was not in the article at the time of deletion. —Cryptic 00:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, Donal Barrington is obviously notable and I got them mixed up reading sources. Nevertheless, I read the AfD as having a very weak consensus to delete, and find many sources on this Joseph Kevin Bracken (1852–1904), an historic person with multiple notable descendants and a defining relationship with the History of the Gaelic Athletic Association. User:Kraxler's 19:37, 5 July 2015 !vote was strong and not countered. The "delete" close was a stretch. If Wikimandia (talk · contribs) want to have a go at it, let him. Undelete. I note the multiple incoming redlinks. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Request temp undelete, as we are talking about what was in the article at the time of the AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tempundelete done. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks. At AfD, I would !vote "keep". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but allow recreation from the previous version (which was rather feeble). Although I don't like the close I think it was within discretion. I feel a bit vexed when closers say things like "policy compliant" in reference to notability. It suggests a lack of understanding of the basis of our notability guidelines. But maybe it was just a momentary lapse. Thincat (talk) 08:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation - not the best written article, but there have certainly got to be many more sources out there given his various positions. Black Kite (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist I don't see that a consensus to delete was reached in the original AFD. Relisting as a new AfD would allow for more thorough discussion and the ability for the community to come to a consensus. Lonehexagon (talk) 03:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation I would advise restoring the previous version and moving it to draft space pending the citation of additional and bette sources, but it soen't have to be done that way. It could be restarted from scratch. i would still advise starting in draft, but that is optional, except for unconfirmed users. I see no need to review the long-ago AfD at this time. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I clicked through the sources in the article and one of the book sources is actually pretty solid and include significant discussion about the subject.[3]. I did a Google search and was able to find more sources which I believe increases the subject's claim to notability, and adds to the argument to undelete or relist the article.[4][5][6][7][8] Lonehexagon (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]