Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 2

Shaytards (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This channel has became one of the most notable on YouTube. It has over 800,000 subscribers and over 300 million combined video views. The last time it was deleted was over a year ago when the channel was less popular. An example stub for this article can be found in my sandbox. Illinois2011 (talk) 04:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as per last time this came to DRV, i.e. forget WP:BIGNUMBER - where are the multiple reliable, independant, non-trivial sources for this? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation [1] is a mighty fine source (3 pages in a book), [2] is reliable (though minor) and [3] is merely in passing. So one very good source, some poor ones, and more than a million Ghits and a pretty high YouTube ranking (I mean you'd have a charting record with that many folks buying your album). It's very borderline but I think we're there. Hobit (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  The second one there is not reliable. It's user submitted content. See the link to "Submit a story", see also the link to "flag story for moderation" --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  The first one is not a mighty fine source, unless we've changed our requirements to be (a) primary sources - it's largely interview material and (b) not address the subject directly and in details - it isn't about Shaytards and doesn't address Shaytards directly or in detail. The only part about the , Shaytards is "when he launched his quickly popular ShayCarl and Shaytards youtube channels, where they have more than 1 billion subscribers" - it's trivial, not to mention the quality of fact checking with the claim of 1 billion subscribers, 1/6 of the worlds population - I think not. The third as you say is similarly a passing mention. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 09:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Given the tone of the book and the fact that the correct number is found 2 pages later, I'm assuming the billion number is for humor value (as seems common in the book). An interview format is generally a fine source and certainly gives us relevant things to write about. It _is_ about Shaytards as the show is pretty much all he talks about. Perhaps this could become a BLP about Shay Carl? [4] is a RS (yahoo finance), [5] is an official Forbes blog I think. All minor (other than the book) but it's pretty plain that this guy and his work are very well known. (for the record I've never seen an episode nor more than heard about it in passing until this DrV) Hobit (talk) 13:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  If the tone is such that it's difficult to distinguish between fact and humour then it really is a lousy source. Interviews are primary sources by nature. I guess we'll have to agree to differ as to if the writing is addressing Shaytards directly and in detail or not. The other two you've now listed are both trivial coverage. It maybe pretty clear to you etc. but the whole point in the guidelines such a WP:GNG is to remove that subjective side of wikipedians deciding what is "pretty clear" or not. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I think this is a time when the guideline is probably wrong. We have enough stuff to write about (the interview is fine IMO, primary sources can also be used) and it's pretty clear to me that when you have 200,000 people watching on a regular basis what you are doing you are probably worth our covering. Please keep in mind the GNG is a guideline. So yes, I'm pretty much in IAR territory, but I think the GNG should be applied with deliberate care. It looks like others don't agree (which is fine) and I realize an IAR exception here would need a pretty strong majority. Hobit (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I have sympathy for some of your view. There will always be execptions which don't quite fit though there is a general agreement that it should be included none the less without any desire to change the basic guideline. In this case however I can't reach the same conclusion as you, a handful of passing mentions and inclusion of interview material in a book doesn't indicate much importance to me, sure more than some but given the number of videos out there that's not necessarily a high bar. The metrics of it are quite difficult to interpret - 800,000 subscribers yet the view per "episode" is much less than that, and no way of telling how many multiple views occur etc. US population it's a small fraction who view, potential worldwide audience even more so. Of course that's why we don't let wikipedia editors work out what the good numbers are. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Unless reliable sources are presented this should not be recreated. The sources presented by Hobit are not reliable as 82.7.40.7 so clearly points out. (1 billion subscribers? is it still april first?) Yoenit (talk) 10:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I totally agree that sources are hard to come by. That's the whole reason I didn't write some huge article on them. But the fact remains that people they work with on a regular basis such as LisaNova have Wikipedia articles and they aren't even as popular. I don't quite understand why there's not the news coverage there to match their popularity. However, even if we don't recreate this article right now, I think that it's totally against the spirit of Wikipedia to have its creation blocked. I would contact the last admin to delete it, but alas, he is retired. Illinois2011 (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emilia Carr (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The initial keep !votes were based on a belief that there was a guideline that women on death row are notable. Upon investigation this turned out not to be the case, and the relevant guideline WP:EVENT, is clear that local coverage of a local event that is not covered elsewhere, does not make it notable enough for Wikipedia. Once this was pointed out, the !votes turned to delete. At the close there were 19 delete !votes to 13 keep. It is speculation to say how it would have turned out if kept open, but the momentum had clearly swung to delete. The AfD was closed as "no consensus" based on the view that WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE was mentioned - though a reading of that section of WP:EVENT supports deletion, as there has been no significant outside coverage at all, let alone "continued" - this is an ongoing local event, covered by the local media only. There have been no case studies as suggested by WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. There appear to have been two reasonable options open on March 12: close as delete according to guidelines, or - if unsure - relist to gain firmer consensus. Closing as keep via a call of "no consensus" when discussion was ongoing and active, and momentum was toward deletion seems unsound. I feel there is enough support both from appropriate guidelines and comments and !votes in the AfD to overturn this to delete, though relisting is also a viable option. SilkTork *^YES! 22:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion has taken place with the closer. SilkTork *^YES! 22:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It had already been relisted once. If the momentum swings back and forth, what can be expected but a non-nconsensus close?. Or do you think the closer should try to time the close like people time the stock market? or continue the debate until it came out the way you wanted? Consensus may be clearer in a few months. DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The !vote was split, the arguments leaned toward delete (especially at the end). But A) I think NC is an accurate reading of the debate and B) I personally don't think the sources are so local as to clearly need to be discarded (including an AP article). Hobit (talk) 07:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The "delete" votes were certainly spirited and well-argued, but to me, the question is whether it's right to use WP:EVENT to protect convicted murderers from coverage on Wikipedia. As far as I can tell, in practice this seems to depend on the notability of the victim. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Knox was closed as "redirect to Murder of Meredith Kercher". But I don't think anyone would nominate Lee Harvey Oswald or Mark David Chapman for deletion. If this view is correct, it argues for a redirect to an article about the killing. I certainly don't think the gender of the murderer is relevant, and I'd personally have given !votes based on the gender a great deal less weight, which also argues for a redirect to an article about the killing.

  But at the end of the day, whether or not Emilia Carr should be a redirect to an article about the killing, it certainly shouldn't be a redlink. This nomination never had a prayer of resulting in a "delete" outcome. Endorse accordingly.—S Marshall T/C 15:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Per your own comments: "At the close there were 19 delete !votes to 13 keep. Closing as keep via a call of 'no consensus' when discussion was ongoing and active, and momentum was toward deletion seems unsound. I feel there is enough support both from appropriate guidelines and comments and !votes in the AfD to overturn this to delete, though relisting is also a viable option." A 19-13 vote, no matter which side the 19 is on, is a clear and definitive "no consensus". There is not enough support to turn to a "delete" scenario. Even without looking at the article itself, just based on the AfD and your comments from it, I endorse the outcome. CycloneGU (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Maintain status quo. I'm not crazy about several things about this AfD, and in general I think there are very few circumstances in which a bio of someone known only for committing a crime will rise to the level suggested by the relevant guidelines. However, the move to the current title was clearly the correct call, there does seem to be sufficient coverage to justify that article and maintain it appropriately, and the redirect as such has never been considered and would probably be kept if it were. Thus, I see no reason to overturn this. Chick Bowen 04:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close as a reasonable interpretation of the discussion that took place. Sine this has now been moved to an event article, there's no need for any further action on that front either, so the current situation appears to be fine. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. While there was a reasonable basis to discount some of the opinions voiced for "keep", there is nothing compelling the closing editor to do so. It is clear that without discounting "keep" opinions, there was, in fact, no consensus. ^Bongo_matic 06:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and support current page move to Murder of Heather Strong. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Renamed, not original discussion anymore - The article has been renamed to Murder of Heather Strong and also rewritten to change perspective. And the focus has changed its not the same article anymore, Not the one people discussed on AFD and not the same before April 3 that people has endorsed. So lets end this discussion. Also per Chick Bowens reasoning, per Alzarian16 reasonings and per Bongomatics reasonings.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]