Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 March 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2018 March 20
2018 March 22 >

21 March 2018

[edit]
  • George Chiang – No Consensus. That being said, even among the people arguing to endorse the original AfD deletion, there's good agreement that any or all of these could be recreated by anybody, providing the new versions contain adequate sourcing to establish WP:N. There's already a draft in preparation so it makes sense to continue to work on that and let WP:AfC provide some quality control on whether the sourcing is sufficient. I see from the comments in the draft that the prior AfD deletion is being taken as a block to AfC accepting the draft; I'll state here that this deletion review releases the AfC reviewers from that constraint. – -- RoySmith (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
George Chiang (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Golden Lotus (musical) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
The Railroad Adventures of Chen Sing (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This is a page I deleted based on the consensus at the AFD at the time. John99Wick requested a review on my talk page and mentioned new sources (permalink) as well as adding more to Draft:Golden Lotus (musical). I am thus filing this DRV on behalf of John99Wick per WP:DRVPURPOSE#3 with the request to allow recreation (either directly or by going through AFC). Pinging everyone involved on my talk as well as the AFD: @Robert McClenon, Bearcat, Shirt58, Calton, and Timmyshin. Regards SoWhy 08:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is not necessary for DRV to overturn the original AFD result before a new article can be recreated about a previously deleted topic, so long as the new version makes a stronger and better sourced case for notability than the first attempt did. AFD is not a permanent ban on a subject ever being allowed to have an article, but a judgement on the quality of the article that was written. If somebody can make a better case for notability, with better sourcing for it than the first version, they do not need DRV to give them permission before they're allowed to do it — the only thing an AFD discussion prevents is recreating an article without significant improvement to the substance and sourcing. So DRV is entirely unnecessary here: if John99Wick can properly source that Chiang or his plays clear our notability standards for writers or their works (he hasn't gotten there yet, but he is sincerely trying), then DRV does not need to overturn the original AFD result first. DRV is for cases where there are arguments that the original result was improper in the first place, such as a closer incorrectly evaluating the consensus of the discussion itself — DRV does not need to overturn an AFD result before somebody is allowed to take a stab at a better version of an article about the same topic. Bearcat (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, per WP:DRVPURPOSE Deletion Review may be used: [...] if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page; which is why I brought it here. Regards SoWhy 15:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Unless something factual has changed, no. The grounds for non-inclusion weren't that the article creator hadn't gathered the right set of magic words that fulfilled a checklist, it's that the subject isn't notable; i.e, has some reason to be noted. --Calton | Talk 15:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn with respect to Golden Lotus (musical). On the one hand, the new draft on the musical does not look much different than the deleted draft. However, in my opinion, the deleted draft should not have been deleted, because it met notability as a show. The real problem is that the musical and another work were bundled with the author, and the discussion was only about the BLP. There was no consensus about the musical because it was not discussed at all. This was a train wreck; time to get the musical train back on track. Thank you, User:SoWhy. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the musical wasn't that it didn't claim notability — it's that it didn't properly source notability. It is not improper to bundle a work with the creator of that work; it would have been improper to bundle a Shakespeare play with George Chiang's BLP and delete it on that basis if nobody had noticed or discussed that, but that's not what happened. Notability is not extended on Wikipedia just because notability has been claimed — it has to be reliably sourced before it actually passes a Wikipedia inclusion standard, and it (a) wasn't, and (b) still isn't, in the draft in question. Bearcat (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a list of new sources for all 3 articles that were bundled on Bearcat (talk) . On there I explain the sources you questioned and gave information on the credibility of the new sources.John99Wick (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)John99Wick (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)John99Wick (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I've already explained to you why some of your new sources still aren't cutting it. Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I addressed your comments on my latest posts today on Bearcat (talk) . I think they adequately explain the sources including the links to Facebook which are posts of original articles no longer online. But they can been taken down and I can just list the source itself with no link. Some of those sources are the top English and Chinese newspapers in Hong Kong.John99Wick (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just addressed your latest comments about the sources on Bearcat (talk) It can take down the Facebook links and just cite the source itself.John99Wick (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's one of the things you have to do here. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All of the Facebook links have been removed from the Golden Lotus (musical) page and the sources properly citedJohn99Wick (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and keep deleted until 2-3 sufficient sources to show Wikipedia-notability are present. The articles were deleted due to lack of proper sourcing. The draft presented is WP:Reference bombed, the the first three sources I checked do not come close to demonstrating notability. The onus should be on the proponent for the article to present the minimally required sources, which does not mean throwing every source at us. Suitable sources are reliable, independent, and comment directly on the subject. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The StandardHK is a very credible source as the leading English newspaper in HongKong. Sing Pao is one of the top two Chinese newspapers in Hong Kong. There are two references from STandardHK and one from Sing Pao that comment directly about the subject and they are referenced in the article. MaddBuzzHK and wenweipao sources are also reliable sources in English and Chinese respectively. John99Wick (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed 7 reference sources from the article leaving only the reliable sources.John99Wick (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is not ideal. Ideally, you you list here the 2-3 best sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[1] I do not believe that this is independent. It is a feature interview, intended to be promotional.
[2] I'm not sure. It may be fair to very week. It doesn't actually say anything about The Golden Lotus, it reports facts about it. There is some commentary on the author.
[3] Again, weak to fair, it is a good review, but it is a promotional review as evidenced by the link to another site advertising the event. A post-run review of or commentary would be much stronger.
But OK, two of these three are arguably sources, so I believe that this deserves another day at AfD. Allow recreaction. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn ::::: In addition to those you memtioned above here are other sources from top newspapers in Hong Kong for Golden Lotus (musical)

白健恩激情戲成重點 Ronan Pak Kin Yan's Passion Play, SING PAO, September 25, 2014 A Woman Pursues Her Passion in Life and Dance, The Standard HK, September 10, 2014 A Modern Interpretation of a Chinese Classic Tale, The Standard HK, p. 23 September 26, 2014 Rebirth of an Epic Tale of Passion, The Standard HK, page 4, September 5, 2014John99Wick (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC) John99Wick (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)John99Wick (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist The musical appears borderline notable to me. I think it's better to discuss this at AFD than here. Timmyshin (talk) 07:46, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I saw the musical in Hong Kong and I really liked it. My partner, at the time, knew one of the performers in the Hong Kong production of Golden Lotus. I just went to see the musical and became a fan after seeing it. I am no longer seeing that partner and I have no connection other than that to the musical or George Chiang. The answer to your questions are "no, no, and no." John99Wick (talk) 01:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Isophene Goodin Bailhache (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This article was speedily deleted on 9th March 2018 under G12 but the copyright violations were minimal, and could easily have been removed and rev-dels performed. I am querying the decision to delete. The article has since been restored. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are now asking for a DRV for a page which has already been restored (by Megalibrarygirl), and where I already stated two days ago in User talk:Megalibrarygirl#Copyvio that "It does look as if my deletion of Isophene Goodin Bailhache was overzealous though, thanks for catching that. Fram (talk) 09:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)". There is nothing to restore left, and I already stated that this one deletion was "overzealous", so what exactly is this DRV supposed to achieve? Fram (talk) 11:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had the title of the page wrong so I have corrected it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat: "what exactly is this DRV supposed to achieve?" Two days prior to your listing here, all history had been restored, and the deleting admin (me) contacted the restoring admin and admitted that the restoration was a good thing because the deletion had been "overzealous". There is nothing left to do in this DRV. Fram (talk) 11:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cwmhiraeth: I'm also rather confused what it is that you're requesting. As pointed out above, the article has been restored, and the admin who deleted it has admitted they made a mistake. So, as far as I can see, there's nothing left to do here from either an operational or educational standpoint. You've been here a long time and have been an extremely valuable contributor to the project, so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. But, please respond here and clarify what specific action you would like to see happen. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not now seeking any action. I thought the deletion was wrong so I asked the deleter earlier today to explain why the article was deleted, but they refused to tell me. They could have said "I made a mistake and have restored it" but instead added this unhelpful reply "I will no longer waste my time to entertain you about deletions where you don't understand or accept any response anyway. Fram (talk) 12:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)" (Note the misleading timestamp) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the "misleading timestamp" is because I quoted myself from my previous reply in that very same discussion: [4] was repeated in this (with the edit summary "repeat"). I refuse to entertain your witchhunt and harassment any further, as no answer is ever acceptable to you, and doing some actual work (like, oh, checking in the log for that page who actually restored it instead of saying "Isophene Goodin Bailhache which was deleted by you under G12 but seems to have been reinstated (by someone else?)." Your reply here doesn't explain why you ignored my reply and question here twice, and why it needed another admin wasting his time to get you to acknowledge that you are "not now seeking any action" about an article you had no prior involvement with and which was restored long before you asked about it on my talk page anyway.
I have explained one deletion you asked about repeatedly, both on my talk page and on yours, and you opened a DRV anyway as my answer was "unsatisfactory". The lone comment so far indicates that my deletion and explanation was spot-on. I have explained another deletion you asked about on my talk page and on your talk page, with example copyvio lines and the external, copyrighted site they copied the text from, and you replied "A failure to provide correct attribution then, hardly a reason for a G12 speedy deletion.", which indicates that you don't read my replies or don't understand the copyvio rules. Your motivation to post these kind of requests is "My concern is merely with the competence (and motivation) of the deleter."[5] Good luck with that, but like I said, I will no longer answer to your questions on my talk page, as it is a pointless waste of time and an indulgence of your harassment. Fram (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There actually was (and is) copyvio in the article, by the way, although like I said it probably didn't warrant deletion: "In 1941 she composed a family history to replace one that had burned during the 1906 San Francisco earthquake." vs "In 1941 [...] composed a family history to replace one that had burned during the 1906 San Francisco earthquake."[6]. This is a typical example of the sentences copied identically or nearly identically by the article creator from copyrighted sources in many of her articles, which caused the copyvio blocks, the checks of her articles, and the deletion of quite a few of them (though many more seem to be okay). Again, as has been said before, in this case the deletion was over-the-top, but it wasn't some imaginary violation or random deletion. Fram (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)John99Wick (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2018_March_21&oldid=1039544901"