Kazenga LuaLua (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

He is now a first team footballer and was on the bench against Manchester United. If that isn't notworthy what is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.160.193 ( talk • contribs)

• Restore. According to [1], LuaLua has made his debut appearance for Newcastle United F.C., coming on as a substitute in the FA Cup 2007-08 match against Stoke City F.C. on 2008-01-05. Therefore he now meets the notability criteria of WP:SPORT. -- Stormie ( talk) 22:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply

User:MQDuck/userboxes/Right To Resist (  | [[Talk:User:MQDuck/userboxes/Right To Resist|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| MfD)

This was speedy deleted, but a previous DRV exists which overturned a previous speedy deletion. This is very controversial and the MfD ( Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MQDuck/userboxes/Right To Resist) should be allowed to run its course. Equazcion •✗/ C • 17:31, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC) 17:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I second that. We're going in circles here, and discussion keeps getting short circuited. -- Kendrick7 ^talk 17:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I've been known to delete these things - but to be honest, this will probably not stay deleted as that's not where consensus lies. The battle for deletion is no-longer one worth fighting. However, I'd just plead with the creator and any others who use such things to stop and think. It may be that it is good to let people know your editing interests, however would it not be less dramatic simply to type "I am interested in editing articles on the Iraq war" - no fuss, no contention - just a mature, informative, declaration. We are here to build a neutral encyclopedia - so let's try to be nice and neutral. Now, some will say that it "is good to declare your biases - that actually helps neutrality" - fair enough. But would it not be better to do so in a way that works towards neutrality, and convinces people that neutral writing is your goal - rather than using proud colourful boxes. What about typing "I have a strong anti-Bush point of view, please let me know if my politics gets in the way of me being a neutral editor"? That declares your biases, but strongly suggests a mature self-reflection, and a desire to work to neutrality, rather than to ensure one POV is reflects.
  Now, to those who want to use these boxes, if you want to push policy, it is probably the case that deleting these things is without support and you are within your "rights" to keep them. Consider though that what you "can" do, and what you "should" do, if you are serious about creating a neutral encyclopedia, may not coincide. Could it be better to do things differently? Perhaps you could simply agree to deletion yourself.
  To those admins who think these things are unwikipedian, and detrimental to the neutrality of our content, then consider this suggestion from a repentant userbox deletionist. Rather then using deletion, or slogging it out on MfD, why not try to change the culture to one where these things are not encouraged and are seen as reflecting the wrong attitude to wikipedia? Use your influence to persuade users to do things differently - and let it be known that when assessing a user's suitability for trusted positions in the community, their commitment to neutrality and collegial editing as demonstrated (in part) by their use of userspace will be a large consideration for you - even to the level of opposing people on RfA for having the wrong attitude. I suspect that will have far more impact, and influence with the community, with far less drama-- Doc ^{g - ask me for rollback} 17:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Again, Doc, a don't ask, don't tell policy is bad for the community. Too bad the discussion was speedy closed out of process, as I don't want to have to retype everything. -- Kendrick7 ^talk 17:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Didn't suggest that. By all means humbly declare your biases and invite people to let you know if you've inadvertently allowed them to prejudice your editing. But "loud and proud" declarations (of whatever POV) show a lack of understanding of the ethos of wikipedia...I will from now, oppose any RfA where the applicant is using such things, and I invite others to do the same.-- Doc ^{g - ask me for rollback} 18:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply

So you would have opposed the closing admin's RFA for his declaration of being a libertarian? Or Catholic? I find that hard to believe. Personally, I'll support users who are open about their beliefs as opposed to being secretive and/or automatons, i.e. I'll take admins who can pass the Turing test any day. -- Kendrick7 ^talk 18:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• The MfD was closed prematurely because an administrator decided that the page qualifies for speedy deletion and applied it. Simple as that. As to the template, it checks as inflammatory enough (just count the drama it generated so far) and just plainly doesn't belong on an encyclopedia. Thus, it should obviously be kept deleted. Миша 13 17:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • The last speedy close was overturned already. But round and round we go. Oh well, people can just subst the thing. -- Kendrick7 ^talk 17:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • (ec)But the MfD was leaning towards a keep. I don't like the template either, but come on, at least let the process complete for once. This was speedied twice and overturned twice already, why not just let the MfD complete? Equazcion •✗/ C • 17:50, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)
    • So this is the third go round? OK, then this is getting really silly -- Kendrick7 ^talk 17:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply
      • Yes, one speedy without a request template, one MfD close as speedy, and now this second close as speedy. Equazcion •✗/ C • 17:55, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)
        • Blah, blah, blah about process all along and nothing about how the page simply doesn't belong here. Just keep it deleted and we'll be done with it. It's really that simple. Миша 13 18:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply
          • I really don't think that's fair at all. I want the template deleted too but there are other people's views to consider here. Equazcion •✗/ C • 18:04, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)
            • Keep Box, for reasons well laid-out in MfD. There are many, many more divisive political userboxes. We could take them all here too. What Kendrick had been saying I essentially agree with. I'm not doing this to be a dick, but I find it grossly unfair for this to have happened the way it did. Xavexgoem ( talk) 18:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply
              • There are more you say? Please, oh please point them out so I can delete them too. Seems like a good time to purge the userspace cruft (which we allowed by migrating userboxes) from the extremities that found their way there. Миша 13 18:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply
                • YES. At the risk of sounding uncivil, if you had read the MfD you would know that. There was discussion of deleting other similar boxes. Equazcion •✗/ C • 18:18, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)
                  • Then I must be blind or something as the only other linked-to userbox I could find was the Tibet one (and it was the DRV on 9th and not the MfD). Apart from that, yes, there were WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments, which is why I am kindly asking for pointers to that WP:CRAP so that WP:OTHERCRAPGETSDELETEDALONGWITHTHISCRAP. Миша 13 18:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply
                    • Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics Equazcion •✗/ C • 18:36, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)
                    • Probably more would have been listed, but you short circuited the normal 5 days of discussion. I'm sure I can find user boxes supporting the occupation, the U.S. troops, the War on Terrorism, etc. -- Kendrick7 ^talk 18:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and reopen discussion. trialsanderrors put a message on the MfD saying that the CSD wouldn't apply, due to previous DRVs. Process for the sake of process might be bad, but ignoring it isn't always the right thing to do. That said, the userbox might want to be reworded in order to avoid this sort of thing; I'm sure there's a less controversial way of saying it. -- lifebaka ( Talk - Contribs) 18:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I doubt it could or else it would lose its original meaning in which case those who use it would lose interest (and recreate the original yet again). Is this effort really worth it? Does this userbox really further the project of building a free encyclopedia that much? Миша 13 18:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and return to MfD for the discussion. Whether political userboxes should be allowed is debatable. Whether this box but not the contrary ones supporting the Occupation should be deleted is very debatable indeed, and looks to me like the expression of political POV. But what is not debatable is the merits of having the discussion first, not the deletion. And especially the taking of admin action to close the debate early, when responsible editors disagreed with the deletion. Speedy is for uncontestible deletions, and speedy deletions justified by IAR is for emergencies. DGG ( talk) 18:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  I would support any uninvolved admin who wants to immediately overturn the close. I'm too involved to do it myself. DGG ( talk) 18:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • This is an emergency. Lots and lots of users are wasting valuable time on a thing that in no way helps building a free encyclopedia. Миша 13 18:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Remain deleted Well obviously it would've been nice for it to run the full length, but I've got to agree that its a divisive template that we really don't need around here. Did Misza stretch his discretion, probably, did he stretch it too far, I don't think so. MBisanz ^talk 18:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • The way to have prevented users wasting valuable time would have been top let the discussion continue in its proper place, instead of needing to do it over repeatedly.
    We do not' all agree it is a divisive template, and the discussion there and here makes it obvious. You think it is, argue it at the MfD when it is re-opened. i do not think it reasonably can be seen to be, but will wait to argue it there. DGG ( talk) 19:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn speedy deletion and relist. I don't care about the userbox dispute at all but just like an AFD discussion exempts a page from being speedy-deleted, once a DRV overturns a speedy, the page may not be re-speedied. (The only exception is if a copyright violation is subsequently discovered or if the page is deleted per an OFFICE action.) In light of the prior DRV, the re-speedy was entirely out of process. Rossami (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn speedy deletion and relist, when a speedy deletion has already been overturned by DRV and sent for discussion, it's completely unacceptable to speedy it again for the same reason. -- Stormie ( talk) 06:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The Medic Droid (band) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

Controversial non-admin closure ignoring consensus. Addhoc ( talk) 14:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Jake Weary (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

Controversial non-admin closure ignoring consensus. Addhoc ( talk) 13:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse keep -- we're not going to delete this article due to a lack of reliable sources, after such sources have been provided [2]. John254 13:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - The AfD has been re-opened. Addhoc ( talk) 14:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply

User:MQDuck/userboxes/Right To Resist (  | [[Talk:User:MQDuck/userboxes/Right To Resist|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

This was deleted by an admin a few days ago and the deletion was decidedly overturned. Today, it was put up for speedy deletion. I put up a {hangon} tag and it quickly got replaced with a page consisting only of {courtesy blanked}. MQDuck ( talk) 13:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Shibby (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

This page has been deleted and I'd like it to be re-instated. Shibby are a british punk rock band who derived their name from the popular movie "Dude, Where's My Car". They are the only band in the world called Shibby (so their should be no debate) and they have a very comprehensive history having been covered in Kerrang. They have also been played on XFM, Kerrang Radio and toured with some amazing bands, including KOOPA, ELLIOT MINOR and ZICO CHAIN.

Please re-instate this page as this band is on the rise and it's really important that people can find out abut this band.

Please Help!

Mark (Shibby Management) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark msamusic ( talk • contribs)

• It would appear that the page in question is Shibby, and the above user is asking for it to be unsalted. A similar request in November was refused. I'd normally point out to the person making the request that the article should be written in userspace for consideration when requesting an unsalting, but a look at Google doesn't convince me that the band is at a point where it meets the guidelines for bands, and the fact that the person asking for the unsalt saying the band needs a page is with their management makes for a problem. Mark msamusic: please take a look at our conflict of interest guidelines, as well as this page regarding using a Wikipedia page for self-promotion. For now, until someone else besides the band management writes an article in userspace for consideration, keep protected. Tony Fox (arf!) 08:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply

John Adams (Beekman Town Supervisor) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

As being a town supervisor, a position which appears analogous to that of a mayor, is an assertion of notability, this article should not have been speedily deleted per CSD A7 John254 03:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion but allow re-creation. Local politicians are not necessarily notable per WP:BIO, and this article had no sources other than the town's own web site. However, if independent reliable sources are available to establish notability, the article could be re-created. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply

CSD A7 expressly excludes questions of reliable sources from the criterion. Articles need not prove notability to avoid summary deletion under CSD A7, only non-frivolously assert it. Further evidence of notability might have been provided at AFD, had such a discussion been permitted to occur before the article was deleted. John254 04:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn deletion asserted importance per WP:CSD#A7, which doesn't require sources or meeting WP:BIO or any of the other stuff people imagine it to. -- W.marsh 04:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The article, which in full read "John Adams (b. 1949) is the Town Supervisor of the Dutchess County town Beekman, New York. [3]" did not assert encyclopedic notability. It only asserted that the subject belongs to a class of office holders which are not inherently notable. ~ trialsanderrors ( talk) 13:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Mayors are almost always notable per the general notability guideline, as there will invariably be significant coverage of their activities in local newspapers. While being a mayor doesn't establish notability per se, it's certainly a valid assertion of notability. John254 14:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Not per Wikipedia:Notability (people), especially footnote 6. While most mayors are subjects of routine coverage, I don't see more than a minority of mayors receiving significant coverage under the guideline. ~ trialsanderrors ( talk) 14:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and restore per W.marsh. Being a town supervisor is enough of an assertion of importance for A7 to not apply. -- lifebaka ( Talk - Contribs) 14:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn deletion There was a clear assertion of notability so A7 wasn't an appropriate deletion rationale. Whether the article's subject is notable is a seperate issue best resolved at an AfD. RMHED ( talk) 15:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and restore it probably won't hold up in AfD unless thee is more to be found, but it is certainly enough for speedy. Any good faith assertion of something which a reasonable person might possibly think notable in an encyclopedia is acceptable. DGG ( talk) 16:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I'm not sure if I understand this correctly, but it seems to imply that articles of the variety "X belongs to class Y" make a reasonable assertion of notability as long as there are members of class Y which are considered notable. For instance, "Bessy is a cow at Farmer John's farm" is an assertion of notability because we have articles on cows. ~ trialsanderrors ( talk) 17:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Actually, "articles of the variety 'X belongs to class Y' make a reasonable assertion of notability" if and only if a substantial percentage of the members of class Y actually are notable -- as is the case for mayors. "Bessy is a cow at Farmer John's farm" does not constitute an assertion of notability, because the percentage of cows that are notable is infinitesimal. John254 17:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply

John, I think that's a novel principle, and you should discuss it at WT:CSD or the VP. As i see it , they make a sufficient assertion, if any even non-trivial number of the class might be notable, which takes care of Bessies's Cow. --or rather, it would, if CSD A7 applied to animals, which it does not. DGG ( talk) 19:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Question Are we really arguing about a one line article? Just go an recreate it already add a source and then ask someone to undelete the history. Less drama, same result. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Bad deletions need to be overturned. An admin's mistake shouldn't force people to spend time rewriting an article then begging for an undeletion. It's bad deletions that make arguments like this necessary. -- W.marsh 22:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply
    • I see no admin's mistake. If there was an admin's mistake you could restore immediately per WP:DP. ~ trialsanderrors ( talk) 14:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Note it's says it's a "town supervisor" not the mayor, there was no claim of notabilty other than saying he's a town supervisor, whatever that means, so endorse my speedy deletion. Also to note User:John254 has been harrassing me and going though every single one of my logs, just because I had confect with him. Secret ^account 22:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply
    • "The position of Town supervisor in New York State is usually the highest elected position in an incorporated town" if you don't know the key term in an article means, you probably don't know enough to make a proper deletion. -- W.marsh 22:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Still a local politician, I don't see the point in restoring articles that won't survive AFD anyways, undelete and merge to the town article is a better opinion. Secret ^account 23:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Generally, if the only issue is that the article won't survive AfD, then it's better to prod the article. ~ trialsanderrors ( talk)

Voice of the Retarded (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

UNDELETE_REASON I simply want my file back since it seems to have vanished into cyberspace and in my near-continuous "senior moment" I can't recall the details of what I originally wrote. Love. Love26 ( talk) 03:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Love26 ( talk) 03:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. Voice of the Retarded was deleted on the grounds that it was an attack page. I don't know if I would go so far as to call it an attack page, but it didn't contain any sources for its claims either. The article as deleted was only two sentences long, so there wouldn't be much to recall anyway. I would recommend that if you want to re-create it, the article should be re-written to include sources for its claims from the start and be written from a neutral point of view. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• I am willing to email the text, though not to restore it to userspace. It does not violate BLP. DGG ( talk) 16:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Natasha Collins (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

I'm bringing this her before someone else does. First of all, the deletion dicussion was very controversial, with about half voting delete and half voting keep. I know deletion discussions aren't votecounts, but to me as a keep voter I thought the keep voters raised better points. It was certainly plagued by single purpose accounts and new users (myself included) but the outcome should have been a no concensus at the worst. The closing admin, User:Fram, offered a quite short close for such a controversial topic that it shall be written below in its entireity:

(yadda yadda delete and redirect) ...She was not notable, her death was a notable fact in the life of already notable Mark Speight though. This close is obviously not a votecount...

Uh... Fram, she was notable. According to WP:BIO:

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.

Collins' article had plenty of sources, so lets cross that one out. Some may point, as Fram stated, that she was notable for only one thing-- her death-- and that should belong in the Mark Speight article. There's that plus the fact that she appeared in three notable TV shows, one of which she was co-star. Had her acting career not been famously cut short in a car accident in 2000 (that's another way she was notable) we would not even be having this discussion. But since Wikipedia is not a chrystal ball and people blatantly disregard some of my comments on the afd, I guess this article will forever remain a redirect. That is, unless people are listening to what I am saying right now (sorry for the random bolding, trying to get people's attention here). Editorofthewiki ( talk) 02:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn -- administrators should consider consensus and policy in formulating decisions concerning AFD closures, not give conclusive weight to their own opinions. The AFD closure, containing a bare, unsupported assertion of non-notability, constituted a mere statement of opinion, insufficient to support deletion of an article as a result of a controversial AFD discussion. John254 04:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per WP:IAR. One of the issues raised at the AfD was that it appeared to violate WP:NOT#NEWS, which from what I can tell it does. The notability issue is pretty borderline, I see no consensus on it in the AfD. But WP:NOT is pretty hard stuff, and I'm rather surprised it was only brought up once in the debate. -- lifebaka ( Talk - Contribs) 14:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Whatever the merits of ever raising WP:NOT#NEWS in any deletion discussion without claiming serious WP:BLP issues ^[1], WP:NOT#NEWS clearly does not furnish a valid rationale for deletion here. Indeed, WP:NOT#NEWS expressly states that "topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial"; the massive media coverage of Natasha Collins cited in Special:Undelete/Natasha Collins would therefore suggest that this person is, indeed, an "encyclopedic subject". WP:IAR is inapplicable, as the unilateral deletion of articles on the basis of personal opinion, policy and consensus be darned, hardly improves Wikipedia -- indeed, it is profoundly insulting to the extensive efforts of the contributors who wrote the article, and encourages them to leave Wikipedia altogether.

John254 15:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply

My concern is simply that there will be no impact from this (other than impact to Mark Speight, which ought to go on his article), which I believe is the intent of WP:NOT#NEWS. WP:IAR is applicable for this reason. -- lifebaka ( Talk - Contribs) 16:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Impact? she could have taken drugs, man -- the co-star of a children's TV show. She didn't just work with Mark Speight, she had a few other roles in other TV shows and presented corporate videos Then she had her horrible accident and death -- certainly more than one thing she was notable for. Editorofthewiki ( talk) 17:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Like I said, the AfD looks like a no consensus on stricktly notability (so overturns do make sense, and I am not really opposed to them). I'm not basing my comments on notability. -- lifebaka ( Talk - Contribs) 18:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Subject was only really notable for her death and being the partner of Mr.Speight. If she hadn't of died in initially suspicious circumstances then I doubt this article would ever have come into existence. RMHED ( talk) 15:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and Wikipedia is not censored. We don't delete articles on the basis of conjectural interpretations of the motivations of their authors, or because of bare disapproval of the manner of their subjects' notability. John254 16:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Also se my comment above. Editorofthewiki ( talk) 17:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn I agree with John on the proper very limited application of NOT#NEWS. This article was redirected to the article on the person thought to be her murderer, which would have been an acceptable editorial decision if that had been the case., since we usually do prefer the name of the criminal not the victim, unless there is some strong reason otherwise, (I gather he is not being charged with the crime, depending as usual on WP for my coverage of this sort of news), DGG ( talk) 16:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn Subject was notable enough for a close-run AfD if she hadn't died, one that I would expect to end in no consensus and therefore default to keep. With her death, the pile-on no memoriam arguments obfuscated the real question which is, as ever, "does the subject pass WP:V?". This time, murdered or not murdered (and seemingly not) it does. Overturn. -- Dweller ( talk) 23:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn per compelling argument of DGG. The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Closer's comments. I don't see any notability. She was at first wrongly described as a BBC presenter, but this turned out to be incorrect. She was a very minor model and actress, whose death got some attention because a more famous person was apparently involved. The articles were not about Natasha Collins is dead! but Mark Speight possibly involved in suspicious death! (for the admins here, see e.g. sources 4 to 7 in the deleted article). This was pointed out by a number of people in the AfD, and the opposite was asserted but in my opinion not shown by those wanting to keep. I also ignored the SPA's, but there were plenty of people left on both sides. To me, the arguments on WP:NOT#NEWS and the related section in WP:BIO1E were the strongest, and taking into account that BLP often is applied to recently deceased people as well, I closed like I did. However, if consensus here disagrees with me, so be it. Fram ( talk) 09:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Neutral. Thanks to Fram's outline of his/her reasons. I would note that it would have been better had Fram outlined all of that in the closing comments, which as I commented to Fram are somewhat vague. I would also admonish the opener of the review for not seeking to discuss the issue with the closing admin first. I think this falls into admin discretion area, and I can't quite work out if Wikipedia is better off with an article on Natasha Collins or not. I appreciate that's revisiting the afd, but in a situation like this, with an admin using discretion, I think all we are deciding upon is which outcome best serves the encyclopedia. What matters is that the reader is informed. I think both outcomes inform the reader, so maybe what we are left with is an editorial decision? Hiding T 11:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply

This closure was not within administrative discretion. Administrators must not delete articles on the basis of personal opinion, without consensus and without any coherent policy rationale. The closing administrator's statement "to me, the arguments on WP:NOT#NEWS and the related section in WP:BIO1E were the strongest", without even attempting to address my argument against the application of WP:NOT#NEWS presented above, AND without attempting to address my argument against the deletion of the article on the basis of WP:BIO1E presented at the AFD itself, cannot be interpreted as anything other than a mere statement of personal opinion regarding the matter, insufficient to support the deletion of this article. John254 14:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply

With regard to the question of which outcome best informs the reader, I note that deleted articles aren't very informative. John254 14:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply

You suggested in the AfD that WP:BIO1E might be a good argument to rename the article. The actual result of the AfD is that the article is renamed to Mark Speight#Arrest, where all the relevant, necessary info can be found. Your argument against WP:NOT#NEWS is mostly about when it was added, not against the actual text of it. This person is mostly known for being caught in a newsworthy event (of the gossipy celebrity style), and even there she is not the main focus of the article. This [4] is a typical example of the kind of articles about the case: she is clearly not the focus of the article. "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted." (from WP:BIO1E). You may disagree with my closure, but please don't dismiss it as "without any coherent policy rationale". Fram ( talk) 14:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply

If the article was going to be merged and redirected to Mark Speight#Arrest, why was the page history deleted, thereby preventing any additional content from being merged? Note that deletion and merging of content would violate the GNU Free Documentation License, since the authors of the text would not be attributed. Where's the coherent policy rationale against leaving the page history intact under the redirect? Furthermore, Special:Undelete/Natasha Collins contained far more content that reasonably could be merged to Mark Speight#Arrest -- renaming the article to Death of Natasha Collins would have provided far better coverage of this event than a merge (which we now can't do anyway, thanks to the deletion of the page history). John254 15:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The problem, of course, with attempting to invoke WP:NOT#NEWS or WP:BIO1E as a justification for deletion is that both of these policy sections don't even contemplate what was actually done to this article. Natasha Collins is presently a redirect, not a red-link. Neither WP:NOT#NEWS or WP:BIO1E provide even a modicum of support for deleting the page history under the redirect. John254 15:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply

(edit conflict) I didn't say it was merged, I said that all the relevant info was at the Mark Speight article already. The info would be equally irrelevant at a "Death of Natasha" article. Being a minor model ten years before her death is only potentially relevant for someone who afterwards became famous in their own right, not for someone whose death got tangled up with a famous person. Basically, her name comes up a few times in articles focusing on Mark Speight, and the current situation here reflects that. Nothing was merged, so no GFDL violation has occurred. I don't think we need "better coverage of this event", we are not a news service and certainly not for such non-events.

As for this redirect not being contemplated in WP:BIO1E: well, I disagree. "A separate biography may be unwarranted". This is exactly what I did, but instead of "information on the person should generally be included in the article on the event itself", it is included in "the section" on the event itself. This difference is in my opinion so small as to be meaningless. WP:BIO1E does nowhere state or imply that the name of the person should becomle a redlink and that a redirect is not a good solution for this kind of situation. Fram ( talk) 15:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply

There's another problem with retaining the information on Natasha Collins in Mark Speight#Arrest: the excessive coverage of this event in the biography of Mark Speight places undue weight on the events with respect to him, thereby constituting a WP:NPOV violation, and, thus, a rather serious WP:BLP violation in our coverage of Mark Speight. The biographies of living persons policy seems to mandate that we have an article entitled Natasha Collins, if we are to cover the event at all, and that Mark Speight#Arrest be merged there, with only a brief mention of the event in Mark Speight itself. John254 15:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply

All articles about this event focus mainly on him and only mention her briefly. Current media article titles all have a variation on "Mark Speight and his fiancée". We either discuss it at his article, or not at all, but to have it at her article is even more "undue weight", since she isn't even given "weight" in the articles discussing the (non)event. I have no trouble dropping the section (and the redirect to it), but that is a separate discussion. Fram ( talk) 15:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Undue weight with respect to Natasha Collins is of comparatively little importance from a WP:BLP perspective, since however much WP:BLP applies to deceased subjects, it is certainly applied less stringently. Mark Speight is actually a living person, with respect to whom undue weight is a real WP:BLP concern. John254 15:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Of course, I find the claim that the death of Natasha Collins is undue weight with respect to Natasha Collins to be untenable altogether -- it certainly seems like a rather important event in Natasha Collins' life. John254 16:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply

(edit conflict again)It is of very minor importance for WP:BLP if the text is contained in the article Mark Speight, in Natasha Collins or in Death of Natasha Collins. Mark Speight is already well known, so the "cover the event, not the person" clause doesn't apply to him. It does apply to Natasha Collins though (if applying BLP also to the recently deceased). And someone's death is always of major importance to that person, but her death is not the focus of the media fixation, but his involvement is. Fram ( talk) 16:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply

So, basically, this article was deleted so that Wikipedia could serve as a conduit for the media's fixation, consensus be darned? Though we rely on the facts as the media reports them, we need not give them the same weight that the media does -- WP:NPOV does not mandate a "newspaper point of view". John254 17:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply

As a further note, from nominator of the DRV, she was not just a minor tidbit in the life of Mark Speight. She is equally as notable, as Mark Speight did little less than his role in See It, Saw It. Collins, along with that role, also had minor appearances in several other TV shows. Then she had her accident, which clearly would be a bad thing to put in the Mark Speight article since it involves Collins and Collins only. Just mentioning this to further back up John's points. Editorofthewiki ( talk) 20:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Every closure is within an admin's discretion, and since a redirect is in place the reader is still informed. Hiding T 13:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse I'm not all too happy with the closing rationale, but from the discussion itself the core claim to notability, her involvement with the BBC and her modeling career, is sufficiently nebulous to invoke WP:V as a deletion reason. To write biographies, we need verifiable information on key biographical details. ~ trialsanderrors ( talk) 17:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Actually, Natasha Collins' "involvement with the BBC and her modeling career" has been clearly described in a third-party reliable source -- see [5]. John254 20:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC) reply

One of the reasons for WP:NOT#NEWS is that even supposedly "reliable" news outlets frequently get biographical information wrong in the immediate aftermath of the news event. This is why we require secondary sources, which summarize, compare and correct the primary news account after the fact. The Times clip you link to shows the some nebulosity about her career as the discussion itself. Besides, if she was notable before her death, we should be able to find biographies of her that were created while she was alive. ~ trialsanderrors ( talk) 13:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

She wasn't that notable, just notable enough to warrant an article. An article that currently doesn't exist. Editorofthewiki ( talk) 20:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Furthermore, newspaper articles are considered to be secondary sources with respect to the subject matter that they cover, irrespective of the speed at which they are published -- please see Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources. John254 01:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• overturn per DGG. JoshuaZ ( talk) 18:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Out of curiousity, how many newspapers ran an obituary? Hiding T 13:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply