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

Not given enough time after relisting for debate. 59.92.130.187 (talk) 13:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there was not enough time,room given after relisting it for debate.It was relisted yesterday,and as someone tried to abuse the editors,did repeated vandalism,I think the discussions closed immaturely and the Delete decision was taken.I tried to talk with the admin who closed,but his page shows that he will be away for 10-14 days and hence creating this page.I'm just looking for more room for discussion,as closing the discussion,even before something was discussed(after relisting) seems little odd. 59.92.130.187 (talk) 13:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - There were several calls to delete, and the only loose keep opinions, by an IP and two new accounts (one indefinitely blocked already), rested on arguments discounted by WP:ALEXA. It's an Indian porn board that apparently no reliable sources talk about; not much else one can do, and no other way to read the AfD other than a consensus to delete. Tarc (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• RelistA relist is an attempt to get additional arguments. No additional arguments were presented, just a repetition of the previous ones. Closing a relist after less than 24 hours seems to defeat the purpose. the basic argument for keeping was that an exception should be made to the normal criteria, based on the ranking, and there should have been a chance to see if anyone supported it. (I have no opinion on the underlying merits at this point), DGG ( talk ) 17:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I think it's fair to say that there will be a great deal of room for discussion if the nominator would be kind enough to list the reliable sources he intends to add to the article if we agree to overturn the deletion. Without such sources I don't really expect this nomination to succeed.—S Marshall T/C 19:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist-Per DGG. Closing so quickly after a relist defies the entire point.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• While it is entirely permissible to close a relisted debate if consensus becomes clear without waiting for the end of the relist period (see WP:RELIST), in this case I cannot say that consensus has in fact become clear. As Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, however, I would support S Marshall's suggestion that the nominator briefly outline the reliable sources on which he proposes to rely.
  As the closing administrator is marked away, I assume that it is for this reason and not out of discourtesy that the nominator has omitted to consult with him prior to opening this listing. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have any specific points to put in that discussion.All I wanted to point out is that, the debate didn't progress when it got relisted,as it got closed prematurely.People may put forward /debate further if we relist the debate.59.92.146.163 (talk) 21:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep deleted then; no sources = no article. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Before the debate was relisted, the consensus was to delete. The delete positions voiced by Mechanical digger (talk · contribs), Bearcat (talk · contribs), and Kinu (talk · contribs) were persuasive and policy-based. Those who supported retention failed to rebut the concerns that the website lacks coverage in reliable sources and that it fails Wikipedia:Notability (web), Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), and Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

  Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs) stated: "my keep is contingent: keep if and only if reliable sources can be used on the article". No reliable sources have been provided.

  The remaining "keep" opinions—mainly from single-purpose accounts—were not policy-based and were therefore accorded less weight by the closing admin.

  If the nominator can provide third-party reliable sources about Exbii, I will support a relist. Otherwise, I oppose a relist because the AfD debate will inevitably be closed again as delete if no sources are provided. Cunard (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• how can you possibly know in advance what arguments people will find? DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• My primary reason for endorsing deletion is "Before the debate was relisted, the consensus was to delete." Process was followed and reached the conclusion to delete. To answer your question: unless reliable sources can be found, I do not believe this article would be kept after an AfD relist. Cunard (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse – I see nothing procedurally wrong with the deletion discussion. It was listed, and then it was relisted; the consensus for deletion has not changed, and, after reading the above, I don't see how relisting would change that. –MuZemike 08:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carli Banks (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article should be restored, because she is well-known in the industry and I think the admin made a big mistake deleting this article with no reason. She hasn´t won a award yet, but she has 1 nomination, is a Penthouse-Pet, worked for all big companies in the business. She even has a film named "PPV-3111: Carli Banks J/O Encouragement 4". So these are all facts that weren´t recognized. Look to the german article, then you can see the relevance clearer. By the way, the first deletion was a joke, because it should be keeped, and the 2nd deletion built up on this deletion. And my 2nd article was much better then the first one. --Hixteilchen (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Deletion review is not to be used to challenge the deletion of articles for reasons previously presented; rather, it is to be used when an administrator has failed to follow the deletion process somehow. DRV will not substitute its judgment for that of AFD where the administrator's action was reasonable. In practice, I tend to apply the Wednesbury test in deletion reviews, which is to say we should look to overturn outcomes only where the closer gave weight to something to which he should not have given weight, omitted to give weight to something to which he should have given weight, or where the decision arrived at was one at which no reasonable administrator could arrive. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As always, where an article has been deleted and is not protected, anyone is free to recreate the article if they can overcome the reasons for deletion. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• While I would endorse the 2007 deletion as Stifle has done, it was more than three years ago now and it seems possible that new sources have arisen. If so, we may wish to allow creation of a fresh article. The article in German is here, but it has insufficient sources by en.wiki's standards. Hixteilchen, please could you list the sources you propose to use?—S Marshall T/C 12:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and relist Consensus can change in 3 years. DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - We're here to review the actions of the closing admin at the last AfD, not to play games of "maybe she's blown enough porn actors on-screen by now, let's make a article!" If someone wants to work on something in userspace to see if it can pass the WP:GNG, or failing that, WP:PORNBIO, fine. But that isn't what DRV is for, especially in a nomination consisting of handwaving at sources allegedly out there somewhere. Tarc (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Absent actual sources this is pretty much an exercise in futility. Either create an article with sources or write a draft in userspace but don't waste other editors' time with unsubstantiated assertions of notability. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore Ok, my sources are Freeones.com, AVN.com, IMBD and own recherche. I think relevance is clearly given, because she is really popular in the business. Just google to see the relevance (740000 sites), this is much more than other porn actors. I should say, I see huge admin mistake in deleting this article under false conditions (as I described), so it´s right to ask deletion review!--Hixteilchen (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• AVN.com may possibly be a reliable source. Or at least, there are discussions on the talk page of WikiProject Pornography here and here which indicate that WikiProject Pornography think so. Winning an AVN award is one of the specific examples they give for passing WP:PORNBIO. (Carli Banks has not won one, but it may speak to the reliability of the source.) Banks also has pictures on Wikimedia Commons with, apparently, OTRS permission for us to use, and an article on de.wiki. Neither of those mean that she passes en.wiki's strict rules concerning BLPs, but I think they do suggest we should take this request seriously.—S Marshall T/C 23:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple sources are required so AVN on its own isn't enough even if there wasn't a dispute about its reliabilily. Wikiprojects don't yet superceed community standards and I have seen plenty of arguments about AVN being inaccurate over facts that suggest that there is a good faith argument that it isn't a RS. Sorry but for a BLP we need to do much better then this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Note that the article survived a prior AfD and is not eligible for speedy deletion of any sort, including G4, per WP:CSD. Jclemens (talk) 06:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a very extreme interpretation of CSD as it was deleted after the second AFD so you cannot possibly argue that it is wrong to G4 something because there was a prior discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very bad faith not to mention AfD #2, which resulted in a delete, clemens. Tarc (talk) 12:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to assume that you missed AfD #2. Because otherwise, if you follow your argument to its logical conclusion, any article that survives at least one AfD can be recreated at will. I'm not going to mention specific articles, but anyone with any sense of Wikipedia's history will know what I'm talking about and why that this is an incredibly bad idea. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • To reply to all three at once: 1) It's not extreme, it's a plain reading of WP:CSD, which says, and has for some time now, "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations." It could say, but does not, "If a page as survived an immediately prior deletion discussion". A previous discussion, at WT:CSD, failed to achieve consensus for a change to this wording just a couple of months ago. Thus, it doesn't matter how many additional deletion discussions have happened, per the current wording of CSD, it wasn't eligible. No assumption of bad faith or overlooking the second deletion discussion is necessary to my point, because a subsequent deletion discussion, closed as delete, doesn't erase the first one. If there hadn't even been a second discussion, just an outright G4 without any prior deletion AfD, this would be an entirely different conversation. Spartaz and Tarc, you are welcome to post appropriate retractions and apologies. IronGargoyle, you bring up a good point, but one that can be dealt with without needing a change to CSD: if there has been a previous deletion discussion survived, then one that an article should be deleted, it may then be appropriate to discuss WP:SALTing. Absent that, the CSD process expects that once something has been kept in a deletion discussion, it will forever after get the benefit of an AfD discussion. That's not so unreasonable or extreme: if consensus can change, then the expectation that consensus can change back does not require much imagination. Jclemens (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Previous discussion at WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 39#G4 clarification. Flatscan (talk) 05:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • This might need separate discussion. Let's just say that I agree with IronGargoyle's interpretation where, and only where, (1) the article in question is a BLP, or (2) the most recent deletion has been confirmed via DRV. I agree with Jclemens' interpretation in other cases, because for low-risk material has been kept once and then deleted once, then it's reasonable to presume the matter's borderline and the consensus could have changed again.—S Marshall T/C 10:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think you're right that this needs a separate discussion, S Marshall. Thank you to Jclemens for pointing out that language in the preamble of the CSD policy. My thoughts, however, are that specific criteria overrule general principles (but I could see how a reasonable person could disagree on this point). If we leave G4 relatively toothless for multiple-AfD articles, as Jclemens would suggest, it doesn't encourage the improvement of the article (and over time our editorial criteria should become stronger). I don't think it's unreasonable that we should expect ANY article to be substantively improved for restoration if it fails ANY AfD. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • When we prevent G4 for multiple AfDs where one was a keep, almost all will be one keep and one delete and there is no reason to suppose the later decision invariably the better. It would not discourage the improvement of articles--repeated re-creation without improvement often leads to salting at the subsequent afd. The idea is that if a prior AfD any time said keep, then it is not a rationally incontestable deletion, for at least one closer thought otherwise. Multiple AfDs bias the process to deletion; this decreases the bias, but it is still be biased that way. DGG ( talk ) 17:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • The problem is that denying G4 in multiple-AfD cases relegates the later AfDs into near meaninglessness. It turns them into a glorified PROD. I also don't think that it necessarily biases the process towards deletion as you assert. Consider that many repeated nominations attract speedy keep !votes. In many cases, this is despite legitimate flaws in the article that should indeed warrant deletion. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • I don't think it does. Repeated AfDs tend to have an air of stare decisis about them, where a nominator is expected to put forth a compelling argument why the previous consensus was incorrect. Failing a good rationale (and given adequate AfD participation), the decision is often reconfirmed by the new AfD. Thus, there is some amount of churn on repeated nominations, but not significantly more or more futile when a previous deletion discussion has been "keep" or "delete". Jclemens (talk) 02:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Many is the time an article is kept at the first AfD or even the first 2 AfDs and eventually deleted, either because standards have changed for the better, or because different people have contributed to the discussion. The reciprocal should be permitted equally. DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy deletion. The addition of an IMDB reference (which should not be considered to be a sufficiently reliable source for a BLP) is not a substantive improvement for the article to be immune from CSD G4. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn doesn't qualify per the wording of G4 (been kept in the past). It's not a clear cut case, and frankly that last (2007) AfD wasn't exactly stellar. Let it go to AfD, get deleted or kept. If deleted we could salt if if folks are overly worried about recreations. Hobit (talk) 20:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per IronGargoyle's interpretation of G4 and Generalia specialibus non derogant (need a separate article for that). --Mkativerata (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to respond to this and to the general G4 point on the DRV talk page, lest this DRV be completely taken over by parsing the language of G4.—S Marshall T/C 21:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • My POV is that this article was deleted on G4-base in speed proceed. That was wrong because she fulfills at least model criteria with 22 photo shootings for the Penhouse Magazine. In german wiki there is a deletion discussion, but 2/3 want to keep the article: see here => [1]. So I see there is a general diskussion about the validity of this deletion and that´s good. --Hixteilchen (talk) 00:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ich glaube Carli Banks wird auf de.wiki behaltet und auf en.wiki gelöscht. Wir haben unterschiedliche Regeln.—S Marshall T/C 02:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak endorse, sources presented seem to fall short. Considering the AfDs – both in 2007 and neither really well attended – either deleting or declining the G4 would have been within admin discretion. A draft is the best way forward, but I don't want to waste Hixteilchen's time if the sources are obviously inadequate. Flatscan (talk) 05:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per the fact that the original reason behind the deletion has not been addressed and that restoring would introduce additional BLP concerns. If other sources come up that are reliable and can provide at least something more than a mere mention, then we may have something to talk about. Otherwise, going through another AFD which would likely end with another deletion would be pointless. –MuZemike 08:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- I agree with IronGargoyle's interpretation of G4 as this more accurately expresses the spirit of the thing. Jclemens's interpretation is mere quibbling and I don't see the point. Best to leave cases like this to the discretion of the administrator. Reyk _YO! 10:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]