Lucas Cruikshank – No consensus to overturn either the AfD close or its later modification by local consensus. No consensus as to whether the role of DRv should be expanded to consider these questions. –
Eluchil404 (
talk)
04:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Lucas Cruikshank has began branching away from only being a YouTube personality. His information is currently scattered around the
Fred Figglehorn article. After proposing a split that stood unopposed for two weeks, I attempted creating the article
here and
here, which was quickly reverted. I hope that this article can be cleaned up as I propose.
117Avenue (
talk)
21:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Speedy close -Merging and/or splitting an article is an editorial decision, and thus should be discussed on the appropriate talk page (which, indeed,
it is.) Given the prior merge outcome of the AfD, discussing such a split before performing it makes sense, but there's really no action for DRV to take. I just checked the talk page of
User:Seresin (the editor who reverted the split) to suggest he join the split discussion, only to discover that he, in fact, directed 117Avenue to open a DRV. With due respect, he is incorrect: a DRV is not necessary in this case. Furthermore, the split discussion has gone on quite a while with no negative input. Given that, I've
boldly restored 117Avenue's version, as it appears satisfactory to me. Opposition to this should take place at
Talk:Fred Figglehorn#Proposed split.--
Fyre2387(
talk •
contribs)00:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)reply
I intend to nominate the Cruikshank article for deletion if it is allowed here to split regardless of why, so I have no particular objection so this DRV's being speedy closed (though I do not advocate such action). ÷
seresin00:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)reply
As I recall, we did approve the change of Articles for Deletion to Articles for Discussion , though we never changed the instructions or even the titles of the pages. In that spirit, a disputed split or merge that can not be resolved otherwise could appropriately come here--in practice we often end up doing it anyway: discussion here can sometimes lead to a merge result. The other means of Dispute Resolution aren't necessarily well adapted for this. DGG (
talk )
04:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment: Allow article recreation, but it will be subject to an AfD. Suggest that 117Avenue first create draft in userspace (hit me up if you want me to review before going live. I suspect many are unaware at the depth of coverage on this guy.)--
Milowent (
talk)
11:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)reply
The
WP:GNG requires non-trivial coverage in multiple independant
reliable sources. THeir own website fails the independant part of that, of course they'll write about themselves, anyone can do that, I could - wouldn't make me notable. The USA Today fails as (1) it isn't about the paint crew and doesn't mention them it's about the arena and (2) Even it's coverage of the arena is trivial covering just a few sentences. The other sources in the article were things like blogs (isn't a reliable source) or comments made on articles which also aren't a
reliable source. If you want to fix this find somes references which talk directly and in detail about the paint crew (not things/people associated with them, but the paint crew itself). If you post some such links here then people will be better able to evaluate if a viable article meeting the standards can be met --
82.7.40.7 (
talk)
07:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)reply
I know who this is – this is the anonymous coward(s) from Southern California who has/have been wikistalking and harassing Ricky81682 ever since his block of Okip.
[1] and
[2] nail it right on the head. –
MuZemike18:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Lucas Cruikshank – No consensus to overturn either the AfD close or its later modification by local consensus. No consensus as to whether the role of DRv should be expanded to consider these questions. –
Eluchil404 (
talk)
04:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Lucas Cruikshank has began branching away from only being a YouTube personality. His information is currently scattered around the
Fred Figglehorn article. After proposing a split that stood unopposed for two weeks, I attempted creating the article
here and
here, which was quickly reverted. I hope that this article can be cleaned up as I propose.
117Avenue (
talk)
21:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Speedy close -Merging and/or splitting an article is an editorial decision, and thus should be discussed on the appropriate talk page (which, indeed,
it is.) Given the prior merge outcome of the AfD, discussing such a split before performing it makes sense, but there's really no action for DRV to take. I just checked the talk page of
User:Seresin (the editor who reverted the split) to suggest he join the split discussion, only to discover that he, in fact, directed 117Avenue to open a DRV. With due respect, he is incorrect: a DRV is not necessary in this case. Furthermore, the split discussion has gone on quite a while with no negative input. Given that, I've
boldly restored 117Avenue's version, as it appears satisfactory to me. Opposition to this should take place at
Talk:Fred Figglehorn#Proposed split.--
Fyre2387(
talk •
contribs)00:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)reply
I intend to nominate the Cruikshank article for deletion if it is allowed here to split regardless of why, so I have no particular objection so this DRV's being speedy closed (though I do not advocate such action). ÷
seresin00:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)reply
As I recall, we did approve the change of Articles for Deletion to Articles for Discussion , though we never changed the instructions or even the titles of the pages. In that spirit, a disputed split or merge that can not be resolved otherwise could appropriately come here--in practice we often end up doing it anyway: discussion here can sometimes lead to a merge result. The other means of Dispute Resolution aren't necessarily well adapted for this. DGG (
talk )
04:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment: Allow article recreation, but it will be subject to an AfD. Suggest that 117Avenue first create draft in userspace (hit me up if you want me to review before going live. I suspect many are unaware at the depth of coverage on this guy.)--
Milowent (
talk)
11:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)reply
The
WP:GNG requires non-trivial coverage in multiple independant
reliable sources. THeir own website fails the independant part of that, of course they'll write about themselves, anyone can do that, I could - wouldn't make me notable. The USA Today fails as (1) it isn't about the paint crew and doesn't mention them it's about the arena and (2) Even it's coverage of the arena is trivial covering just a few sentences. The other sources in the article were things like blogs (isn't a reliable source) or comments made on articles which also aren't a
reliable source. If you want to fix this find somes references which talk directly and in detail about the paint crew (not things/people associated with them, but the paint crew itself). If you post some such links here then people will be better able to evaluate if a viable article meeting the standards can be met --
82.7.40.7 (
talk)
07:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)reply
I know who this is – this is the anonymous coward(s) from Southern California who has/have been wikistalking and harassing Ricky81682 ever since his block of Okip.
[1] and
[2] nail it right on the head. –
MuZemike18:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.