Chris Molitor (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This AfD was closed as no consensus, default to delete, which appears to be a misinterpretation of consensus. I refer to the following points below, as well as the discussion with the closing administrator.

The closing administrator discounts the three keep arguments as merely being guideline based, but relies on the two delete arguments which cite no guidelines/policies and only use phrases such as "common sense" and "foolishness". To wit, the guideline cited is WP:ATHLETE, which is consensus based, whereas the deletion arguments revolve around nothing indicated in policy or guidelines. In his expanded rationale, the closing administrator states "Deleters made a case for ignoring the guideline in question, and the Keepers didn't demonstrate that we should follow it in this instance." However, because the notability of the subject was agreed upon by most participants (even those arguing to delete agree that notability exists, albeit possibly marginally) and WP:V was met (through the addition of sources), the burden of proof should be on those recommending deletion to clearly state (i.e., through guideline/policy) why the established consensus guidelines/policies should be ignored. To say that an unjustified argument of "common sense"/WP:IAR trumps one that is based in other policy/guidelines is questionable and leads to a misinterpreted closure; given the lack of such justification, the closing administrator appears to have given undue weight to those arguments.

The closing administrator also states that BLP issues existed in the article and pushed the closure toward a deletion, and concurred with delete voters stating that the article is a magnet for vandalism. WP:BLPDEL indicates that [b]iographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed and that [p]age deletion is normally a last resort. While AfD is not cleanup, the WP:BLP concerns were appropriately addressed during the course of the discussion through cleanup of the article, addition of reliable sources, and oversighting of necessary diffs, meeting this aspect of the policy and not necessitating the given last resort. It appears that closure ignored the fact that the BLP issues were cleared up, albeit not in the most efficient way possible. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and to remove ostensibly legitimate content because of previous BLP issues and the hypothetical fear of future BLP issues is unjustifiable and is a slippery slope that could theoretically apply to all BLPs, and seems to contravene WP:BLPDEL. Further, while vandalism is a cited reason for deletion at WP:DEL, it is also clearly stated that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page. Given this, the weight given to the "magnet for vandalism" argument and its citation in closure appears to be unjustifiable.

While a closure as no consensus could still be justified, albeit weakly, per WP:NOCONSENSUS, [i]n any XfD (WP:AfD, WP:TfD, etc.), "no consensus" defaults to keep. There is no precedent for a no consensus closure to default to delete, even in a WP:BLP setting. The closing administrator states that "the article had BLP issues, there is a precedent for defaulting to delete in the absence of a clear consensus" in his extended rationale. However, as indicated above, the BLP issues were taken care of, invalidating this clause of the rationale. Likewise, he attempts to cite precedent by indicating a previous case and its DRV in the extended rationale on his talk page; however, that case (due to its subject/nature) had significantly different issues than an article with a few diffs that had to be oversighted for hit-and-run vandalism, and appears irrelevant here.

-- Kinu ^t/_c 20:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I'm glad this has come to DRV because it is certainly a DRV-worthy case. Regarding WP:ATH, I don't think the delete !votes (I was one) should be in any way discounted because of their conscious disregard of the guideline. The fact is that less people probably had input into the basketball element of WP:ATH than had input into this AfD. It was a borderline case on WP:ATH so the delete !voters were entitled to set aside the presumption (not guarantee) of notability created by the guideline (not policy). Admittedly, I could have done that in more comprehensive language. I endorse the "no consensus defaults to delete". It was a bold call that doesn't get explicit support in current policy, but the current policy should be changed to reflect it. It was the right call because it was a perfect example of us having no adequate mechanisms to prevent serious vandalism on marginally notable articles. Our protection policy doesn't allow us to deal with it properly. The BLP issues here were not "taken care of" - the problems were edited out, but there was no guarantee of an ongoing solution other than volunteering to watchlist the article. I think if there is firm evidence to suspect serious harm to a living person being caused by an article - as there was here - the default in a no consensus case should be to delete. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you clarify as to why you feel the delete !voters were "entitled" (as you put it) to ignore the guideline? The fact that the notability was "marginal" appears irrelevant to that line of thought. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I said "set aside" not "ignore". Anyone is entitled to argue with reason that a presumption of notability (or a presumption against notability) created by a guideline should be set aside; doing so is merely giving effect to the meaning of presumption (as opposed to guarantee). My reason was that the subject's appearances in the league were so brief, and the league - as compared with the other basketball leagues mentioned in NSPORT - is failing and not really professional any more. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • To see that the league "is failing and not really professional any more" is an opinion that is better addressed (with evidence) in an overhaul of the criteria to satisfy WP:ATHLETE, not in its application/choice to ignore ("set it aside"... semantics). --Kinu ^t/_c 20:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise, "if there is firm evidence to suspect serious harm to a living person being caused by an article... the default in a no consensus case should be to delete". However, this is purely hypothetical (and is an opinion unsupported by policy), especially when the vandalism looked to be a case of hit-and-run. As indicated above, merely being vandalized once, even if it did warrant oversighting, in no way justifies paranoia as to possible future BLP vandalism as a reason for outright deletion. I'm sure there are many more popular BLPs that have been oversighted in their day... just because more editors tend to watchlist those doesn't mean they should be more protected from outright deletion. We may more easily revert/oversight that vandalism by virtue of the articles' popularity/visibility, and thus certain niche BLPs might be more prone, but the popularity/visibility of an article should in no way influence whether a previously-vandalized BLP should be kept or deleted. Similarly, you say the BLP issues were not "taken care of"... to have them oversight them removes them from public (and even private) viewing, and for the sake of the article's history it is as if they never existed. What else is there beyond that? Deletion accomplishes nothing that has already been implemented, hence it has been "taken care of." --Kinu ^t/_c 20:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• It is completely evident that WP:ATHLETE needs a major overhaul. I would go into further detail, but it would be a waste of server space to simply duplicate what Mkativerata says. Endorse for the exact same reason. NW (Talk) 20:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • While WP:ATHLETE may need a major overhaul, WP:DRV isn't the place to proselytize about what WP:ATHLETE or any other notability guideline should be, which as indicated is precisely the problem that occurred at the AfD and its closure. It may be far from perfect, but as it exists in its current form should be the way that it is applied, and to ignore it without proper justification seems to be grossly negligent and subjective. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the policies have failed us for providing quality articles that follow content policy, we are perfectly entitled to set them aside. This instance has shown us a clear case where the notability policies have failed. NW (Talk) 21:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do not see it as being a "clear" failure, as you indicate. WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV are met in the article. WP:BLP was met through correction of the issues. WP:ATHLETE is supported. To say that policies or guidelines do not apply in this case without further elaboration is quite vague, as has been the problem with this AfD situation in general. Please elaborate. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • If we cannot assert that our biographies of living, breathing persons will be fine with a fair degree of certainty, then somewhere along the line we have failed. And we have failed in this regard, as a hundred thousand different things over the past several years have shown. Therefore, despite the fact that it does not provide us with a standard set of specific notability criteria to follow as we blindly have for far too long, we must learn to reembrace WP:IAR, something that I think has been forgotten for far too long. My two cents. NW (Talk) 03:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm aware of a couple of occasions in the past where admins have decided that a no consensus outcome with a BLP defaults to delete. It's always a blatant act of sysop fiat. There's been no discussion that led to a consensus that such a close is permissible. And admins are elected to enforce the community's rules. Not their personal rules—those of the community. A good closer is one who can suppress their own opinion and implement the outcome of a discussion. If they personally disagree with that outcome, then the proper thing to do is to !vote.

  The closer justifies himself in the talk page discussion by pointing out that the article has been vandalised in the past, and I'm not impressed with that as a reason for deletion. I'm open to further discussion on this if there's some aspect that I've missed, but for the moment my position is very strongly and definitely overturn to "no consensus, defaulting to keep".—S Marshall T/C 20:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  It wasn't so much past vandalism, but BLP violations so bad they had to be oversighted (unfortunately I can't remember what they were). --Mkativerata (talk) 20:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, Mkativerata, I accept that there are oversighted revisions. There are such revisions in other articles as well, many of which haven't been deleted. I also agree that there's a general problem with articles that aren't on anyone's watchlist, in that someone might slip a dubious revision past the new pages patrollers. (BLPs are hardly special cases in this respect, by the way; the worst problem I ever saw was in an article about a school. Someone had accused a teacher of being a paedophile and posted his name and the location of his house in the article. My point is that it doesn't have to be a BLP to have a risk of harm to living people.)

  But although I accept that there's a problem, I don't accept that the answer is for admins to go about inventing novel closes. The fact is that while our admins are by and large entirely well-meaning, there are children and self-confessed drug users among our admin corps; admins definitely don't have a monopoly on good judgment. That's why they don't get a free pass to disregard the community consensus.

  I mean, if the closer can ignore the discussion, or invent his own interpretation of it, then why do we bother bringing BLPs to AfD at all? We might as well move BLPs onto a new board called BLPfD, where a random admin looks at the article and decides what to do with it without any community input. No?—S Marshall T/C 21:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I take your point but I'm not sure this an "admin judgment" case. It merely shifts the default to "delete" if serious BLP violations have not been addressed. The only way in which the admin can be said to have gone against the community's consensus here is that there is no clear policy to support "default to delete" in these cases. But such policy shifts come best from being bold in individual cases like this and testing the community's views at DRV, not proposing changes on deletion policy talk pages.--Mkativerata (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• First, don't we normally prefer to fix things than to delete them? Second, how is it not a case of admin judgment if the admin is the one deciding what the default for "no consensus" is? And third, aren't admins elected by the community on the basis that they can be trusted with the tools?—S Marshall T/C 21:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• (1) Our protection policies don't allow for this problem to be fixed through protection; (2) what I mean is that the admin didn't supervote - it was a no consensus and he/she called it as such; (3) well, yes. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• (1) The closer's already decided to disregard the normal rules. But, stipulating for a moment that the normal rules could reasonably have been suspended, protection would be less extreme than deletion, wouldn't it? (2) With respect, a close as "no consensus, defaulting to delete" seems to me to be a very clear supervote; and (3) Wouldn't you agree that "trusted with the tools" means only using them in ways the community expects?—S Marshall T/C 22:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You say "policy shifts come best from being bold in individual cases like this and testing the community's views"... does this not violate WP:POINT? Administrators are entrusted to read consensus at AfDs based on what policy/guidelines are, not to use a closure to put forth an argument about what policy/guidelines should be. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. "No consensus, default to delete" is not only contrary to policy; it represents a position that has repeatedly failed to garner community support despite prolonged and extensive efforts. Administrative authority is used only to implement community and Foundation decisions, not to enforce what an administrator believes the decision should have been. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious overturn No consensus might be right, default to delete isn't. That's against policy. It's been discussed many times and it's clear there is a clear and overwhelming consensus that such closes should not be made. Finally, the reason for going against policy is bogus. Yes, there was a significant BLP issue for a long time. But having people add it to their watchlist solves the problem. Deletion is not needed, so violating policy in this way doesn't even serve a useful purpose. Hobit (talk) 02:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse In the case of barely or non-notable BLPs no consensus should always default to delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • But you'd agree that isn't supported by policy or guideline yes? Hobit (talk) 04:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Policy is descriptive not proscriptive so I'm sure that at some point in the near future practise and written policy will reflect this point of view. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nah. While I'm sure that the usual suspects will be along shortly to support you in this, the fact is that there's fundamentally no consensus on this issue. This means the "BLPs default to delete" camp won't manage to push through the necessary RFC, so it won't be a valid decision by the rules. However, DRV is set up so that a "no consensus" outcome protects the closing admin's out-of-policy decision, as you will see from the many times this has been discussed before. It's annoying that a minority group persists in getting away with this, but they're admins with tenure, so what can you do?—S Marshall T/C 13:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • This comment reeks of bad faith S,Marshall. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • But I'm not wrong, am I?—S Marshall T/C 17:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • S Marshall, you know better than this. Despite the fact that we often disagree, I respect your editing. You know just as well as I that one cannot just make implications of canvassing or whatever else without something to back the statement up. NW (Talk) 03:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'd thought it was established a closed site had been set up for people to discuss the BLP issue? I could go back and hunt down those discussions from a while back, but I didn't think the people involved had denied it. The URL was even posted a few times. Am I misremembering? Hobit (talk) 08:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • I must say that, while what I said is my genuine opinion and has been for a long time now, and I do stand by it, I put it less delicately than I usually would. There were unrelated reasons why I was in a very bad temper yesterday.

                  For the avoidance of doubt, I did not suggest canvassing. I did imply (and I'm now saying outright) that there is a substantial pressure group of established editors who have strong opinions about BLPs, who regularly say that BLPs should default to delete at AfD, who usually show up at DRVs on the subject, and who can often be found talking about the subject on- and off-wiki.

                  I view these editors as resembling the article rescue squadron in that they genuinely believe in what they're doing, but they're attempting to work in ways that aren't the community norm and in ways that I occasionally find irritating (as in this case).—S Marshall T/C 10:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

                  • • I'm sorry but I want to be very clear whether S Marshall is accusing me of off-wiki collusion without evidence? Please can you clarify this? Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I said "there is a substantial pressure group". I didn't say "Spartaz is doing this". My remarks were in response to yours but not aimed at you personally, and for the avoidance of doubt I don't think Spartaz is active on the BLP noticeboard on the Wikipedia Review. However, it's easy to identify others who are, including quite a few with mops.—S Marshall T/C 12:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep- This shouldn't even be an issue. Notability was established, and several editors pointed this out in the AFD. There is no way that should have been deleted on notability grounds. Also, it has been long established that no consensus=default to keep, BLP or not. Umbralcorax (talk) 04:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Marginal BLP, a finding of delete is within admin discretion. I would also note that an admin Kinu (talk · contribs) who participated in the AfD to keep also restored the article pending this DRV. That seems highly improper, not only as a deletion discussion participant...and one on the other side of the final finding...but also if it was deleted then it should stay deleted pending this DRV. Tarc (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is hardly anything improper about temporarily restoring the content and history of the article so that DRV participants can make a judgment about whether the concerns leading to deletion were properly addressed and weighed by the closing administrator during the course of the AfD. Likewise, my keep !vote at the AfD and choice to DRV are not related, per se; anyone can see that the former was based on my interpretation of policy/guidelines regarding article content, and the latter is based on my interpretation of policy/guidelines regarding AfD closures. I have no investment in this article beyond that. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eh, I don't see the issue with it. It's standard practice to restore the article while it is at DRV, and someone would have done it. Better sooner than later. NW (Talk) 03:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (as original AfD nom) - opinions at the AfD clearly show that notability is marginal at best, and the taking into account of long standing damaging material and closing as delete is easily within the closing admin's discretion. Kevin (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn If anything consensus supports notability. The fact that there have been BLP problems that have since been corrected doesn't mean that this article as it stands has any BLP problem so arguing that it should somehow be pushed over to delete simply doesn't hold water. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to Keep consensus was for retention and directly addressed the issue of notability. Deletion by the closing admin is contrary to community consensus on handling "no consensus" cases, even if there was indeed justification to close as "no consensus". Alansohn (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus defaulting to keep. I would support "no consensus" defaulting to "delete" in rare situations such as the subject requesting deletion through OTRS but not in this case. The issue is WP:NSPORT which applies whether or not the subject is alive or dead. Also, on S Marshal's semi-sarcastic mention of WP:BLPFD, I suggested something very similar to that a few years ago on the Wikien mailing list (BLPs for discussion). --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn (keep/no consensus). There was no consensus to delete. "No consensus defaults to delete" has been proposed before and soundly rejected. The finality of a deletion decision requires a consensus. If it should be deleted, you should be able to convince the community. There were no serious BLP concerns. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus, default to keep. No consensus, default to delete has never had community support. The article as it stands isn't a BLP violation. Nowhere in BLP policy does it say that past vandalism is a valid reason to delete a BLP-compliant article. The Keep arguments make valid guideline-based arguments regarding notability; the delete arguments fail to explain why [{WP:NSPORT]] should be ignored in this case. The AfD was relisted a week before closure and the only opinion since then was Keep, so why is the consensus to delete stronger now than it was then? This looks like an obvious overturn. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus, default to keep. It is DRV decisions that ultimately refine and change deletion policy. When there are sufficient consistent decisions, these should lead to any required changes in policy and guideline statements. It seems to me me that community consensus remains that "no consensus" leads to "keep" even for BLPs. The present discussion (and my own personal view) supports that. The closure was contrary to policy. Thincat (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, it's long past time to get past the idea that "passing ATHLETE" (or any subguideline) excuses an article from actually having sufficient sourcing to sustain it. Subguidelines only can note where substantive sourcing is more likely. They may never supplant the requirement that it actually exist. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn: we have three separate issue here: 1) Should BLPs default to delete; 2) Is WP:ATHLETE or WP:NSPORT still a "brightline" rules 3) should vandalism in an article have any impact on AfD decisions. I think that generally BLPs should default to delete, but WP:ATHLETE should be followed and vandalism is not a case for deletion. I actually saw the vandalism before it was oversighted (was unable to edit it out myself at the time, and it was oversighted before I got back to it, but remember thinking "Why didn't Kevin, the defender of all things BLP, delete the vandalism when he nominated it for deletion?"). It also wasn't subtle, hard to detect, easy to believe, defamatory vandalism, it was mindless drive-by obvious vandalism, by a single post user (who, incidently hasn't edited since, but also hasn't been blocked, so could return and edit/vandalise more). The thinking behind the WP:ATHLETE guideline is that if you've played professional sport, even only 4 games, there is probably, somewhere, online or offline, some significant coverage. We just haven't found it yet. The long-term vandalism indicates that it probably wasn't on many watchlists, something that is being worked on by some people - see User_talk:Scott_MacDonald/Pragmatic_BLP. So all up, there is nothing special about this case that shouldn't be covered by the WP:ATHLETE guideline and an improvement in BLP watching. The-Pope (talk) 12:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coy Stewart (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Coy Stewart is in American child actor who currently co-stars in the TBS sitcom Are We There Yet?. The series was renewed for 90 additional episodes in August [1] [2] and is currently on hiatus. I know the reason for the deletion fell under under WP:TOOSOON at the time, but I am requesting that I have permission to re-create this page with a few of this references that I found: [3] [4] [5] QuasyBoy 17:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation without prejudice to a future AfD. The 2nd and 3rd sources listed are enough to believe . Please be aware that you need to be very careful with the BLP of a minor. Also, you might want to notify the folks from the AfD of this DrV as I think their input would be especially useful here. Do note though that if you notify any of them, you need to notify all of them (See WP:CANVAS) Hobit (talk) 04:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for understanding I will notify the nominator now. :) QuasyBoy 19:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation as the primary reasons for deletion appear to have been addressed due to the show being aired and the providing of at least a few reliable sources. Per Hobit, WP:BLP applies, and no prejudice to a future AfD if appropriate. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Massey (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Laura Massey is a major part of the Microsoft's Xbox "public face". Her deleted Wikipedia article is more of a paragraph, which is badly written and sources no content I don't blame anyone for deleting this article. However we need to move past that and look at Laura's history of accomplishments as she does deserve to be fully documented on Wikipedia.

On January 13, 2010 Laura Massey created a new Engineering Blog for Microsoft "Xbox Engineering Blog" http://www.xbox.com/en-US/live/engineeringblog and she wrote the very first article "Welcome to the New Blog Post" http://www.xbox.com/en-US/Live/EngineeringBlog/011310-Welcome which was then later sourced on news site CVG in their article "MS launches Xbox Engineering Blog" http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=231769?cid=OTC-RSS&attr=CVG-News-RSS

On March 27th, 2010 Laura Massey was mentioned on gaming news site joystiq in their article "PAX East: Tour Microsoft's N.E.R.D. Cambridge office with us" http://www.joystiq.com/2010/03/27/pax-east-tour-microsofts-n-e-r-d-cambridge-office-with-us/ showing the Microsoft's New England Research & Development Center at Cambridge

On April 30th, 2010 Laura Massey was mentioned on news site Platform Nation in their article "Free Code Friday: Are You Missing Out?" http://www.platformnation.com/2010/04/30/free-code-friday-are-you-missing-out/ describing the challenging giveaways that Laura Massey does over her twitter account http://twitter.com/lauralollipop on select Fridays

On June 14th, 2010 Laura Massey was the keynote speaker at the 2010 E3 Xbox 360 Media Briefing for Microsoft Electronic Entertainment Expo 2010 debuting a revolutionary motion controlled video chat system named Kinect chat. Kinect Laura appears in this video at 02:03 http://cnettv.cnet.com/e3-2010-microsoft-kinect-xbox-360/9742-1_53-50088986.htmln This is one of if not the most significant gaming events to happen every year and Laura was live onstage being broadcasted over the internet and television (G4TV coverage). Laura is an inspiration to many other girls in the technology industry, as noted in this aspiring student's blog "My sickness and “fanboy” moment" http://blogs.utexas.edu/cs/2010/09/23/my-sickness-and-fangirl-moment/

Many news outlets picked up Laura's E3 2010 coverage and wrote their own articles about her, which I will list below.

• "Microsoft E3 Press Conference Details" http://www.worldofmeh.com/2010/06/microsoft-e3-press-conference-details/
• "E3 2010: Microsoft Press Conference" http://www.slowdown.vg/2010/06/17/e3-2010-microsoft-press-conference/
• "Microsoft Kinects with Dallas from E3" http://www.leadershell.com/2010/06/14/microsoft-kinects-with-dallas-from-e3/
• "Avatar: The Last Airbender – The Burning Earth" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar:_The_Burning_Earth
• "PsEG's E3 Ramblings: June 14th, 2010" http://www.giantbomb.com/profile/pseg/psegs-e3-ramblings-june-14th-2010/30-52998/

On September 5th, 2010 Laura Massey was on the first Podcast to ever record a show in the famous Benaroya Hall Benaroya Hall Major Nelsons Podcast entitled "PAX Prime 2010 LIVE Show" http://majornelson.com/archive/2010/09/05/pax-prime-2010-live-show.aspx On this podcast Laura was also the first ever to perform at Benaroya Hall using a Livescribe pen http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B002DJV83Y/amazon0b53-20/ as a musical instrument (piano). As such Laura Massey joins the long list of musician's to preform at Benaroya Hall in front of a large live audience.

On October 7th, 2010 Laura Massey was mentioned in the famous Wired UK magazine by her first name Laura as "Kinect engineer" http://www.wired.co.uk/wired-magazine/archive/2010/11/features/the-game-changer

On October 8th, 2010 Laura Massey was coined in a definition at urban dictionary "Codist" http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=codist
Bawitdaba1337 (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Analysing each of those sources in turn against the actual criteria of WP:N to see if they really are reliable independent sources that provide in-depth coverage, I see that the hit rate isn't very good.

  1) The xbox.com material is by Laura herself, hence is not independent.

  2) The computerandvideogames.com material is not an independent analysis, it simply reports what she said.

  3) The joystiq.com material is a passing mention of Laura's name, not in-depth coverage.

  4) The platformnation.com material is a passing mention of Laura's name.

  5) Twitter is user-submitted content, hence not a reliable source.

  6) Wikipedia is user-submitted content, hence not a reliable source.

  7) The cnet.tv source can't immediately be ruled out.

  8) The blogs.utexas.edu is a blog, hence user-submitted content, hence not a reliable source.

  9) The worldofmeh.com source analyses the content on the cnet.tv, and also can't immediately be ruled out.

  10) The slowdown.vg source disparages the cnet.tv material, but that actually enhances the case for notability (because it implies it's receiving attention from sources not associated with the subject).

  11) The leadershell.vg source is in exactly the same category as 9.

  12) The giantbomb.com source destroys its own credibility with the words: I wonder if Laura's presenting this as part of (Hi I'm Larry Hryb, Xbox Live's) Major Nelson's attempt to get her Wikipedia article back from the pits of deletion and can safely be ignored.

  13) The amazon.com source doesn't mention Laura Massey.

  14) Wired.com would be an excellent source if it had anything substantial to say about Laura Massey, but unfortunately it's only a passing mention of her name.

  15) Urbandictionary.com is user-submitted content and hence not a reliable source.

  It follows that of the many links in the nomination, the four worth following up are cnet.tv, worldofmeh.com, slowdown.vg and leadershell.vg. I'll leave it to others to make a detailed analysis of those sources.—S Marshall T/C 17:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I would say the cnet.tv source can be directly ruled out. The requirement is that the source is non-trivial coverage, to qutoe the WP:GNG "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail. The cnet.tv source is not about Massey, it does not address the subject of Laura Massey. The sources analysing that fall into the same category, the coverage is not because or about Massey, it's about the event, it could have been anyone doing the presentation on kinect and they would have written the same commentary--82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and speedy close. The nominator concedes that the deletion was appropriate and in-process, and provides no reliable sources with nontrivial content. This article was being recreated ad nauseam, despite the clear consensus at the original AFD and the first DRV. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion and salting. The DRV rationale concedes that consensus to delete was appropriately ascertained. None of the sources above indicate any significant coverage beyond trivial mentions that would have swung the AfD consensus in the other direction or warrant recreation. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. We're told above that Laura Massey is a major part of the Microsoft's Xbox "public face". I don't know what this means. As I read on, I learn that she created a blog and that she was the keynote speaker at the 2010 E3 Xbox 360 Media Briefing for Microsoft. Now, being the keynote speaker at an academic conference is something at which my ears would prick up. But at a PR event by one company for one of its products? No. My own requirements for "notability" have sunk over the years here -- and I'll accept that she is a genuine human (in contrast to all the ingredients of fictional "universes" that get articles hereabouts) -- but I see nothing. Quite aside from the quality or quantity of the evidence proffered for it. -- Hoary (talk) 09:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review so the non admins can see it DGG ( talk ) 12:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion Having the article restored only provides confirmation that the subject is not notable. While the close could have been a "no consensus", the close was justifiable. Alansohn (talk) 00:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Biega (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I was referred here by the deleting editor (see here). The article was originally deleted after a discussion (I was not involved in) on 15 December 2009, however that discussion did not consider that the subject had been selected as a member of the 2007 ECAC All-Rookie Team, thereby meeting the criteria of WP:NHOCKEY of achieving preeminent honours. I created from scratch a new article (different from the deleted version), but this was speedy deleted by Jayjg (as both nominator and executioner) without discussion as a “G4 Speedy Delete”. I think that G4 does not apply because the page deleted is not "substantially identical to the deleted version" and further, "the reason for the deletion no longer applies" because the article now highlights that the subject meets the criteria of WP:NHOCKEY. I request that my version of the Alex Biega article be restored. If a deletion discussion is again warranted it can then be brought to a new AfD where the notability of 2007 ECAC All-Rookie Team selection can be discussed. Dolovis (talk) 14:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• G4 reads: A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion. This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version (emphasis mine). Jayjg has misapplied G4. Overturn and restore without prejudice to a subsequent AfD.—S Marshall T/C 17:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The content of the two articles are substantially the same, the wording might be different but there is no additional content (other than listing some acheivments) that wasn't on the original for the most part which is what the G4 wording in my opinion is intending to convey. G4 most certainly applies here. The fact that he won the 2007 ECAC all-rookie team was known at the time of his articles deletion. Remember that WP:NHOCKEY does not guarantee an article, it is only a guideline as to when sources are likely to exist. -DJSasso (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may have been "known", but it wasn't in the version which was considered and deleted.
  • I'm not seeing a mention of it in the AfD or the article. It may have existed, but it's not clear it was taken into account. Am I missing something? Hobit (talk) 04:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Not substantially identical, AfD discussion is warranted, and a year may have provided more coverage. The propriety of an original AfD closing administrator subsequently G4'ing a recreation (on other than obvious copyvio, hoax, or defamation grounds) is problematic--one suspects Jayjg might be too close to the topic. Jclemens (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Is it not common for a closing admin to watch to ensure discussions they closed aren't recreated? I thought that was expected of a closing admin. I have no problem with it going to Afd if thats where consensus is. But I don't think Jayjg acted in bad faith as your comment suggests. -DJSasso (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Your understanding of the role of the closing admin accords with my own, Djsasso. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I watch plenty of things I've deleted, too. But when G4 does not apply, as it did not here, I don't go about deleted things myself without tagging them. Administrators should always seek a second opinion in cases where they might appear to be biased, and deleting an article as G4 which had not been tagged by any other user smacks of acting as judge, jury, and executioner. Jclemens (talk) 04:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Except that G4 does apply here, which is why I deleted it in the first place, and G4s aren't a special class of speedies that must be tagged before being deleted. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, I'm simply the closing admin here, and there's no rational claim of "bias". Jayjg ^(talk) 13:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I get that you think it applies--but you are wrong. It's not the same article, and "same claims of notability", even if it were correct (it's not), isn't grounds for a G4. Really, the best thing for you to do is admit that most of the people commenting here agree that it wasn't a G4 and that your deletion was out of policy, and agree not to do it again. Furthermore, WP:INVOLVED doesn't require actual bias, just the appearance of bias, as I know well from personal experience. Jclemens (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I would hardly say most people here have said it doesn't apply. 5 out of 12 have agreed with his deletion, so nearly half. So nowhere near what I would call most have said he was wrong. -DJSasso (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse: I would think so as well. As the original author of the WP:NHOCKEY guideline, I'm not remotely sold on Dolovis' premise - there was no intent then, and has been no consensus subsequently, to consider an All-Rookie citation a "preeminent" honor in the same breath as "all-time top ten career scorer, won a major award given by the league, first team all-star, All-American," the examples given. Rather than overturn for an article bound straight for AfD out of process worship, perhaps Dolovis should consider going to the hockey project talk page and test his premise that such a citation would be so regarded.  Ravenswing  19:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn for the reason it is not a G4. Besides the All-Rookie honor (among others) some things have changed since 2009 and it's probably worthy of another look. Biega is out of college and really impressed the Sabres at Camp a few months ago. I believe he's considered one of their top D prospects. Also he's signed a 2-way contract with the Sabres and currently playing on their AHL affiliate now. Bhockey10 (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of which is relevant to WP:NHOCKEY, which states he should have played at least 100 games with in the AHL before being considered notable. So far he's played 1 game. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth an AfD not a speedy deletion being that it is different from past versions. Oh and btw, he's played 7 AHL games, so just 93 more, lol. A more useful fact than the awards and honors is that he's not just a college hockey player that's drafted (Afd in Dec 2009). He's a pro hockey player signed by the Sabres currently assigned to the AHL affiliate (speedy in Oct 2010). Bhockey10 (talk) 05:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NSPORTS was created a few months ago for the specific purpose of helping to weed out players like this who have barely played pro. It is no longer good enough to just be a pro. That stopped being the case months ago. -DJSasso (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. I rarely participate on the rare occasions my deletions go to DRV, but I'll make an exception here. The new article was a "sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" because it contained nothing new in it that overcame the unanimous objections of the editors involved in the original AfD, specifically that the individual failed WP:ATHLETE and WP:NHOCKEY. As for being "a member of the 2007 ECAC All-Rookie Team", that happened two years before the AfD, so it wasn't something new that happened to the individual since the time of the AfD. In addition, as pointed out by the original author of WP:NHOCKEY, it's not a "preeminent honor" anyway. Jayjg^(talk) 21:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a recent Afd on another player who was an all-rookie team member himself who had it mentioned in the afd itself and it was said that wasn't preeminent. As such nothing substantial has changed. -DJSasso (talk) 22:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your example is not even close to being comparable to the current situation: [Frank Pallotta] played a grand total of 49 games in the OPJHL, which is several steps below the USHL. Dolovis (talk) 01:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except that his All Rookie came from college hockey not the OPJHL, and the OPJHL is the same level as the USHL anyways. I would also note that the hockeydb is missing a number of years of his stats. hockeydb is very often not updated as well as it could be for junior and minor league seasons because the information is harder for the site owner to find. -DJSasso (talk) 10:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn: By Jayjg's above logic, once a unanimous AfD discussion has concluded, then it must never again be revisted. That is (hopefully) not true. My argument is that this article should be discussed at a new AfD, and not unilaterally 'Speedy Deleted' under G4 (which does not apply). At the next AfD, these other "awards and honours" (which were not discussed in 2009) will also be considered when determining notability:

2006-07: Won the George Percy Award as the Crimson's top rookie (shared with Doug Rogers)[6]

2006-07: Named to ECAC Hockey League All-Rookie team[7][8][9]

2008-09: Awarded the John Tudor Memorial Cup as the Crimson's most valuable player[10]

2008-09: Selected to the New England All-Star team and All-Ivy League first team[11]

2009-10: Named the 116th captain of Harvard men's hockey[12] Dolovis (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Teams and conferences generally dole out honors and awards, and most teams do indeed elect captains. There is a reason I used the term preeminent honor. Biega was not an All-American, he did not win the ECAC scoring title, he is not in the NCAA's all-time top ten scorers, and the direct intent from the start - supported by consensus thereafter - was for the bar for low minor leagues, junior hockey and college hockey to be exactly that high. Once again, if you want to change consensus and water down the standards, this isn't the place for it.  Ravenswing  23:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may make that argument at the next AfD. the point of this discussion is whether or not the article was a candidate for G4 Speedy delete, and if the nominating editor should also be the deleting editor. Dolovis (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think DRV is addressing speedies recently in an entirely wrong-headed manner: unless there's clear harm for restoring an article, (G10, G11, G12) any contested speedy should simply be restored and listed at AfD. Dragging out notability arguments here that belong in an AfD is unhelpful. Jclemens (talk) 04:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And it has never been the case that contested speedy's go to AFD. Feel free to gain some consensus beyond your own view to change this long standing position, but this DRV isn't the right place. Given the vast quantity of crap which is created and deleted which doesn't fall into your limited list I can't imagine stuffing AFD with them is going to be useful. PROD was designed to fit the gap, those things which aren't by consensus immediately deletable and those things where AFD is possibly too heavyweight. FWIW I'll agree that going too far off no a notability isn't relevant for DRV, but I'd expect whoever closes it to ignore the irrelevant discussion.--82.7.40.7 (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dolovis, it's not at all "my logic" that "once a unanimous AfD discussion has concluded, then it must never again be revisted." - that's just some odd straw man you've invented. My logic is, once an AfD discussion has concluded with a delete decision, a new article on the topic should not be created unless it addresses in some substantial way the reasons for the deletion - i.e. the article is no longer "substantially identical to the deleted version" and further, "the reason for the deletion no longer applies". Also, we can't really "discuss" whether "the nominating editor should also be the deleting editor", since I'm not the "nominating editor", I'm just the "deleting administrator". Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and speedy deletes do not all need to be "nominated" before they are deleted. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Not a G4 unless I'm missing something about the awards in the article or AfD. Certainly think this should go to AfD (again) though where I suspect it won't make it. Hobit (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this rate by the time we get consensus if it should be recreated and go back to AfD he'll have played an NHL game and that'll solve the issue (which likely will come in the next few months anyway). Bhockey10 (talk) 05:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. On balance, given the passage of time, it is not an obvious G4. It'll probably get deleted at AfD again, but that's a discussion for there, not here. QU ^TalkQu 09:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Tacking on another award or two is not substantively different IMO, this is still a notability failure. If this kid is such a hot prospect, just wait a few months until he laces up for an NHL game. Tarc (talk) 13:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One thing an AfD would be good for is that since he signed with the Sabres there looks to be quite a bit of independent, reliable sources written so it's worth an AfD look because he might pass GNG without playing his first NHL game yet. The whole point of this discussion is that it's not a speedy deletion candidate, and esp for the reason given. Bhockey10 (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, clearly not a G4, if for no other reason than that the original AFD (and in particular the original close) stressed that the subject had zero professional experience, while the article version that was supposedly identical discusses his (so far brief) post-AFD professional career. The article might not survive another AFD, but that's the process called for. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, as there is still no provision of substantive sources capable of sustaining the article. Subguidelines on notability never override that requirement, only note where it is more likely to be met. Subjects which do not in fact meet it still must go. If he's really that good, maybe he'll have sufficient coverage for an article someday. We can write it after that happens. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]