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

The original article was MERGED for lacking notability. She's a main character of 3 TV series and several comic limited series. She's been a character in a video game, and had TWO different Happy Meal toys made in her image. I've added a lot of sources to the article in my userspace, to help establish notabilty. User:Mathewignash/Blackarachnia#Toys Mathewignash (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse- The article was merged, not deleted, which allows us non-admins to see the state of the page as it was before the AfD discussion. And I don't see that very much has changed. The outcome of the original AfD hinged on notability; the commentators felt that there were few reliable, independent sources and these only mentioned the subject in passing. The sources you've added in your userspace draft do nothing to address this. They are not reliable, independent sources that cover the subject in detail; they are the same toy catalogues, fanzines and official Transformers promocrap that has been shown time and time again to be insufficient. I do not see any way of overturning what was pretty clear consensus on the back of these poor sources. Reyk _YO! 23:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Question You've said the same many times. Your blanket statements are useless and don't prove anything. Would you mind telling me exactly which of the sources I listed are NOT reliable? Which of the many books, magazines, web sites or whatever you speak of? Be specific or drop your tired old accusation. This article has 30 citations, and a seperate section for external links to sites. It has a detailed introduction, and almost every section had a source of one kind or another. It's much improved over the original article. Mathewignash (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• God forbid anyone should have a different opinion on these articles than you! Fine. You want a detailed analysis of your "sources"? Here you go, my analysis of every source in your userspace that wasn't in the original:

1- the voice actor was such-and-such. Passing mention.

2- "She can turn into a spider". Passing mention.

6- Beast Wars Part 1- the work of fiction itself; cannot be used to establish notability

8 and 9- Ditto.

10- Passing mention in an encyclopedia of animated characters.

11- Two sentences of plot summary on a bloggish site of dubious reliability

12- Another primary source

13- Does not mention the subject

14- I can't look this one up, but I'll bet it says nothing more than that she was a hidden playable character. Passing mention.

17- Transformers fan encyclopedia.

18- Toy Catalogue

19- Toy review on a fansite

20- Toy catalogue

25- Again, I can't verify this one. Does it say more than "packaged along with Optimus Prime"? Doubtful.

26- Review at a fansite

27- Toy Catalogue

• So you see, my description of your added sources as a bunch of passing mentions, toy catalogues and fansites is entirely accurate. The reasons for the original close have not been addressed, and the consensus should not be overturned. Reyk _YO! 23:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You claimed my sources were UNRELIABLE. Do you even know what that means?

1 - Reliable third party book.

2- Reliable third party book.

6- Reliable as it's primary.

8 and 9- Ditto.

10- Reliable third party book.

11- Reliable news site http://www.mania.com/about-us/

12- Another primary source, AND THUS RELIABLE.

13- Does not mention the subject, the subject is the book she appears in. Source itself is reliable.

14- Reliable third party book

17- Reliable third party book

18- Creator's web site, reliable.

19- Profesional review web site by a noted expert, reliable.

20- Creator's web site, reliable.

25- Third party magazine reviews the figure, reliable.

26- see 19.

27- Creator's web site, reliable.

So what is UNRELIABLE about any of it? Mathewignash (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also said they needed to be independent, and cover the subject in detail. I explicitly said so. These two are what most of your sources fail, thus not establishing notability, which is the reason the AfD consensus came out to be what it was. If you spent anywhere near as much time reading the posts you argue with as you do scrabbling around for marginal sources you might actually start addressing peoples' concerns instead of talking past them. I have said my piece; my opinion on your so-called sources will not change and I find it a waste of time to continue with this conversation. Reyk _YO! 00:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the few cited to the Hasbro web site, what source are not indepentent? Mathewignash (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be trying to pick out individual facets of what he said rather than the whole "They are not reliable, independent sources that cover the subject in detail" i.e. each fails one or more of the three. The expansion source by source of the problems perceived is given above, the rest is arguing about the semantics, and isn't really relevant to the discussion. Nor is arguing that each one doesn't meet any given one of the three when it isn't the specific issue he highlighted in his above list. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 06:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It wasn't deleted, but we can overturn to delete if you like?—S Marshall T/C 23:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't try to be funny, the result was "merge", but in reality, the page was just redirected, no material from the page was carried over. This is the appropriate forum, as the instructions say "Deletion review (DRV) considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions and speedy deletions."Mathewignash (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not the closing admin's responsibility to do the merge, that's for interested editors to do, I guess if it hasn't happened it suggest no one is that interested or sees anything appropriate to merge. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 06:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yeah, I think 82.7.44.178 has identified the problem. Mathewignash, did you think it was up to the debate closer to carry out the merge?—S Marshall T/C 08:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • My point is I believe she has enough individual notability to have her own page, not a merge to a SINGLE TV series character list, and I provided numerous sources about her. Mathewignash (talk) 09:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm afraid you seem to be the only one who thinks she's notable.—S Marshall T/C 07:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• when an afd closes with a merge, it should be forced as any other close would be. A merge means a genuine merge, retaining the unduplicated content, but placing it within another article. A merge is different from a redirect, where only a linking sentence is retained. To merge only a small fraction of the content is normally to violate the close. This is commonly seen as the successive removal of content until there is nothing there , at which point the redirect is usually deleted on the basis of there being nt target for it. Now, nobody expects the closing admin to continue to monitor the article , but it the article is edited destructively, and this cannot be resolved on the talk page, I think the first step would be to appeal to the closing admin to ascertain his intentions. If there is no satisfactory results, I think the appropriate place to go is here at deletion reviews,which can examine all aspects of copyright policy. DGG ( talk ) 13:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  If an AFD debate had never been had and a section over time shrunk or disappeared we wouldn't try and enforce it's restoration to former size, since we look to the current consensus about the appropriate level of content. Offering merged content some sort of "protected" status as a result of and AFD debate is against the way things work. In fact we'd normally direct someone who wants to demerge that all they need to do is gain a consensus on the talk page, no need for the process here. Similarly if someone does want to shrink that section what would they do? Take it to AFD to get that section cut down? Of course not they'd just do it and if controversial discuss it on the talk page. In this case it doesn't seem that relevant if no one bothered to do the merge and no one is stopping someone doing it now, then what's the issue? If as part of that a discussion on the talk page considers things differently after this amount of time (be that to trim it, or it should be broken out into another article or whatever), then surely that's the way things are supposed to work? --82.7.44.178 (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - Fair enough. If that's true, then I will remove my suggestion that this page have a deletion review, and i'll take it to the talk page and wait for some feedback. Mathewignash (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  How is "copyright policy" relevant? WP:Copying within Wikipedia applies for merges – if content is actually copied – but missing attribution usually doesn't come into play unless the source page is deleted. Flatscan (talk) 04:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and ban Mathewignash from all toy/fiction-related articles, please. We are back here week after week after week to deal with yet another insipid "here's another toy guide!", "here's another toy website!", etc...the same problems that have sent the overwhelming majority of his favored articles to the dustbin this past year. Fans of fiction, esp sci-fi and fantasy, sooner or later just have to come to the realization that not everyone, esp 3rd party, reliable sources, is as into the made-up universes as they are. I can rattle off dozens of errata on Arthas, Nagrand, or death knights, but I fully understand and am quite content with them being redirects. Tarc (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seriously? That's your contribution? I take one page out of the dozens, one that had some support to keep, I userify it, I research it for months online, as well as in books and magazines, I take it to the notability noticeboard to get advice, I impliment changes that people suggest, and I bring it here for review, and you suggest a "topic ban" for me and call my work "insipid"? How about some HONEST debate on articles instead of attacks? I've asked for review on a half dozen articles in the 5+ years I've been on Wikipedia, I do them one at a time, and only after very careful consideration and review with other editors. Mathewignash (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't just here, it is every lame AfD where you source the same toys to the same exact sources. Over and over and over again. Doing the same thing and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity, as they say. Tarc (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ban nobody from contributing to anything. Encourage those who want to work on fiction of any sort to write and improve their articles. DGG ( talk ) 16:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I encourage people that are capable of doing so within the confines of our notability and reliable sourcing guidelines. Tarc (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• While I can understand that some editors are tired of having to evaluate Mathewignash's sources, I think it's better to discuss here than a poorly watched talk page, followed by silence assumed to indicate consensus, recreation, reverting, and a new AfD. An alternative is WP:WikiProject Transformers, but then I'd expect to see complaints about how that WikiProject is not aligned with site-wide notability standards. Common complaint, not intended as a comment on WikiProject Transformers in particular. Flatscan (talk) 05:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Flatscan (talk) 04:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse It just appears to be seems little it terms of improved sources the article been reactivated.Dwanyewest (talk) 05:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose re-creation Normally, I would support restoring this and relisting at AfD for broader analysis; however, Reyk has provided a rather thorough explanation of the new sources' inadequacy here. Without a satisfactory refutation of Reyk's comments from Mathewignash (or another interested editor), I cannot support re-creation of this article, as a new article would be unlikely to survive AfD. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The article List of Beast Wars characters includes a suitable description of the character instead of merely listing her. It is true that Blackarachnia was a recurring character on the Beast Wars TV show, but there are also other recurring characters who don't have their own articles, such as Tigatron, Silverbolt, and Quickstrike. JIP | Talk 18:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That doesn't really address one problem though, that Blackaracnia was also a regular character on Beast Machines and on Transformers Animated. Why does the page redirect to ONE of the three shows she was in? Seems like a disambig would be at least a little better. Mathewignash (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That causes an interesting question. What should be done if a character has a significant role in several series, but none of them is significant enough for the character to have his/her own article? The character's name should be redirected somewhere, but where? JIP | Talk 19:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If you can't put an actual page about Blackarachnia there because people insist she's not notable enough to have one, can we get a simple disambig, saying something like "Blackarachnia may refer to a character from Beast Wars, Beast Machine or Transformers Animated TV series." Then we link to the character pages for those three shows at least? Then I can merge her page content into those three pages? Mathewignash (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per above. JJ98 (Talk) 22:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Would ANYONE like to take a stab at the one big flaw in the merge result though? Blackarachnia appeared as a regular in THREE TV series. How do you merge her content and redirect to ONE of those series? Unless someone can address this problem, I don't see this as a valid solution. I'd REALLY like some other option. disambig page, or whatever. Otherwise, if someone is looking up the character from one of the other shows, types in the name, they get redirected to the WRONG tv program. Mathewignash (talk) 10:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A disambig page linking to sections in three different list articles (as opposed to an article entirely about Blackarachnia) would be OK by me. JIP | Talk 16:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, List of Beast Wars characters is a better target than the other two lists because Beast Wars was the first series with this character in a prominent role. Second, a disambiguation page doesn't make sense, because "disambiguation" means that multiple topics are being distinguished. "Blackarachnia" doesn't refer to multiple topics; it refers to a single character. That's just one topic, even though the character appeared in three series. Third, the best solution I can come up with is this: linking to the other relevant lists from the subsection to which Blackarachnia redirects. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Blackarachnia from Beast Wars and Beast Machines is the same character, but the other one from Transformers: Animated is a different character who shares the same name. Mathewignash (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to your own userspace draft, the Transformers Animated Blackarachnia is simply a new version of the same character. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move Under Ground (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was significantly expanded after the AfD started. The IP editor who on May 10 added the sections about reviews and foreign editions "commented" in the AfD, but didn't explicitly indicate that the article should be kept. However, I think the changes at that point clearly demonstrate notability, and it shouldn't have been deleted given those changes. No other editors commented on the final version of the article -- the IP was the last to weigh in. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing admins comment I don't think admins should substitute their opinion for a consensus so i wasn't prepared to overturn this but it wasn't clear to me that there had been substantial improvement. Further community discussion of the improvements is required but that should be at AFD not DRV as process was correctly followed. Suggest relist. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I strongly concur that the article had been substantially improved, to the extent that notability had clearly been established (notable publisher, shortlisted for notable awards, and tons and tons of notable third-party reviews). Remember, AfD is not a vote; one 'look how drastically I've just improved the article' outweighs 20 "get rid of this pathetic piece of crap". As such, I advocate that the deletion be overturned and that the article be restored. DS (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult to comment without being able to see the alleged improvement, if I am unable to see the article how can I comment? - I do know that a couple of promo reviews and nominations for promo awards that the book didn't win does not make a notable book. The details worthy of note about this book would/should fill three lines of the authors article. Off2riorob (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, an article on tor.com 5 years after publication isn't terribly promo. Neither is being a nominee for the Bram Stoker Award for Best First Novel.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article temporarily undeleted for the sake of this DRV debate. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for allowing access - as I see from reading the reports the book did not sell well, with a major chain backing out of ordering any copies of the paperback and so he released it on a free download commons compatible license. Anyway - the article was improved during the AFD and as the article has a few reviews and so within guidelines that is notability so I won't object to overturn. Off2riorob (talk) 21:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still think a redirect is in order.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 22:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This will likely be the subject of future discussions, so I hope you won't mind my asking: Why do you think that the article improvements do not justify an article in this case? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete Reviews prove notability. I certainly agree with Spartaz that an admin shouldn't generally over-ride consensus, but there are exceptions, and one of them is that if the article was improved during the AfD in a way that addresses the issues, the opinions that did not take account of this are no longer relevant. DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete with no prejudice to redirection/merging by a later discussion or to another AfD. It certainly seems improved enough that the !votes for deletion are no longer very relevant. Hobit (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete I will not denigrate Spartaz's decision to close this AfD in this way; this sort of discussion is surely difficult to close. However I think that, at this point, the article should be undeleted, with relisting at AfD or redirection subject to editorial discretion, per the improvements prior to the AfD's conclusion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Stein (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Note: User:NuclearWarfare previously closed this discussion as "History restored but all revision texts revdeleted" at 15:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC), and reopened the discussion at 04:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC).

History only undeletion requested. The reason I am requesting this was that the review decision was "redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1987"; it was not delete. It is counter-intuitive that the history should be deleted when the redirect is created. I have raised this with admin who did the deletion at User_talk:Courcelles#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pamela_Stein, but he said that the deletion was intentional.

If Wikipedia is not willing to restore the article history, then the AFD should be more honest and state that the result was "delete", because that is what in fact has happened in this case.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• On reading Courcelles' response, I have to ask: was there in fact a BLP violation in the history?—S Marshall T/C 17:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I see that NW has restored the history after revdeleting the BLP violation, which would seem to address the issues here. I think this debate can be closed with that result.—S Marshall T/C 07:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to delete - with no objection to a redirect. I think thats what he meant anyways. There can be nothing of any value in the history anyway, there is nothing of value in the article. Off2riorob (talk) 22:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support history-only undeletion. Most of these Playmate list articles were created by cutting-and-pasting existing articles, rather than history-preserving merges, and deletion of the individual articles without preserving access to the history may therefore not be appropriate under the licenses involved. So far as I know, there is nothing particularly objectionable in the article history. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore history the content on this person at List of Playboy Playmates of 1987 was created by coying and pasting the content of this article (with some very minor changes it's the same as the content that is there today) so we have to keep the history around for attribution reasons. Hut 8.5 17:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're going to do that, you need to be very careful in re BLP. There are definitely things there that shouldn't be restored, and never should have been added to the encyclopaedia in the first place. Courcelles 20:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to comply with our legal obligations we have to do one of the following:

• Restore the history of this article
• Copy the edit history to a subpage talk page of the redirect target and link to it from the edit history
• Delete the target article.

I don't particularly mind which, but BLP doesn't excuse us from complying with Wikipedia's licensing. Hut 8.5 21:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely convinced that such a thing is needed, as the blurb in the article is two lines long. Nevertheless, I have undeleted the article history and revdeleted the revision texts. NW (Talk) 01:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This solution is satisfies WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Flatscan (talk) 05:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But, as I have already discussed with NW, it doesn't correspond to the apparent consensus in this DRV, which is to restore the history. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing the current state, but my opinion is that most comments (excluding yours) do not distinguish between the minimum licensing requirements, which allow revdel as applied by NuclearWarfare, and full page history restoration. Consensus is not as clear-cut as it appears at first glance. Flatscan (talk) 04:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with other users that the original version of List of Playboy Playmates of 1987 was created as a collection of unattributed copies. Marina Baker, Luann Lee, and Brandi Brandt (the longer entries) are obvious copies. I started with a {{Copied}} for Marina Baker. Flatscan (talk) 05:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The list had been trimmed significantly and the copied content was not mentioned at the AfD, so it was difficult to see that copying had occurred until someone pointed it out. Flatscan (talk) 04:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore history: Easy to do.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore history. The result of the AfD was redirect, and that should not have caused the history to be deleted. If there was anything problematic in the history, only the problematic revisions should have been deleted, not all of them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the close of WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 61#RfC: Merge, redirect, there is no consensus for, as a rule, deleting or not deleting the page history before redirecting. It's left to the discretion of the closing admin. Flatscan (talk) 05:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should note that per my discussion with Courcelles at User talk:Courcelles#Pamela Stein, the only BLP violation being alleged was the presence of the subject's children's names. But the vast majority of the revisions didn't mention the children's names. Per my request to User:NuclearWarfare at User talk:NuclearWarfare#Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 May 18#Pamela Stein (closed), who referred me to User:Courcelles where I raised the issue at User talk:Courcelles#Pamela Stein, I have alredy undeleted the revisions that didn't mention the children's names. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If I'm reading this diff correctly, it should be possible to restore the removing edit by User:Epbr123 (history, "rm unsourced") also. That would allow a more precise oldid to be referenced by {{Copied}}. Flatscan (talk) 04:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment So...the history has been restored by NW, with the revisions containing BLP violations having been deleted. I don't think there's anything left to be done here. For what it's worth, I think deleting the history should usually be up to the closing admin's discretion when the AfD result is "redirect." A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• We're not going to restore any BLP-violating revisions here. The history's already been restored to the maximum extent that it's restorable within policy.—S Marshall T/C 12:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]