Jami Floyd ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The original Jami Floyd article was deleted in Fruary 2010, and I wish to make it clear that while I felt the version in 2010 might have stayed and been improved over time and through regular editing, I do not dispute the deletion by User:NuclearWarfare of an article that was then not then a properly sourced BLP. It's been 3 years since deletion, and though its taken a while, I decided to improve the one-source version that was deleted in order to create a better article to serve the project. In speaking with the original nominator User:Sandstein, he remarked that he would not be inclined to re-nominate if returned to mainspace [1] and when discussing with the closing admin, he granted that my improved version was not a CSD#G4, and that if I wished a version returned to mainspace after 3 years, I should take the question to DRV. [2] The NEW verison is similar to the OLD version, but that is naturally due to the topic being the same.... the differences herein being that the NEW version shows and sources far better than did the old the we have someone who meets WP:ANYBIO and WP:ENT and is thus worthy enough of note. Assertions have been sourced and through effort the new version is superior to the old and is a decent BLP that can serve the project and its readers. I request that the OLD version be undeleted and then overwritten by the NEW with a hist merge of the work performed that improved the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• I indicated at the original deletion discussion that substantial coverage was lacking. That has been remedied in this proposed new version: User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Jami Floyd. While in-depth coverage is still lacking, I do not feel that that should be an impediment to the article's re-creation. -- Bejnar ( talk) 21:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation: Original close was fine (as noted), recreation 3 years later with good faith intent and better content is fine.-- Milowent • ^{has spoken} 22:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation but folks can obviously still bring to AfD if they wish (though I don't think such a move would be successful). I don't think there is a need for DRV here and I'd suggest this just be closed and the article moved to mainspace. Hobit ( talk) 22:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply

  Here on the advice from the deleting admin. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply

  Understood. I just don't think there is an actual need at this point. It clearly isn't a speedy at this point and you are clearly experienced enough to make good judgement calls here. I applaud you for taking the deleting admin's advice, but suggest that this be closed as an unneeded discussion. Hobit ( talk) 03:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Allow recreation - can be valuable to get some WP:CONSENSUS on things like this, even if it seems like unnecessary bureaucracy. Yeah, obviously Schmidt, should understand that such an article could still be taken back to AFD (and he seems to understand that entirely). But if the sources have improved, I don't seem any harm in having a crack at recreation. Stalwart 111 00:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• No jurisdiction DRV is not for things that don't meet G4 and don't have the same problems as the deleted version. Jclemens ( talk) 05:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Regardless of whether or not this is technically within DRV's purview, I do think it was reasonable and appropriate for Nuclear Warfare to recommend a DRV discussion. NW's message to Michael Q is clear: NW recognises the vast improvement in the draft article, but he also doesn't think the reasons for deletion have been overcome. And I can understand that view. Michael Q's version is well-written, technically well-formatted and shows every appearance of being a worthy Wikipedia article. But does it really overcome the well-founded consensus in that AfD? Reasonable people might disagree on that.

  Even though I do think NW's referral to DRV was reasonable and appropriate, I also think that it's well-established that DRV is not AfD round 2. In other words, we're here to supervise the process, but it's not our role to make a close inspection of the sources. That should happen at AfD. So in this case it's right that we allow re-creation but we should say explicitly that we do so with NPASR.— S Marshall T/ C 09:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Let's cut the red tape and close this DRV and let it go forward. AfD can follow if it must. Michael came here on a recommendation and showed extra bonus points of good faith. I and many others would just have re-created it in this type of instance, knowing AfD was possible if we were not right about it.-- Milowent • ^{has spoken} 13:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Da-Wen Sun ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

As Orangemike's advice, I have carefully removed any promotion quotes. I believe the page is no longer promotional. However it was deleted unilaterally by Sandstein. Then Graeme Bartlett restored it, but it was deleted again by Sandstein. I believe the idea here is to improve Wikipedia, not to delete things that one does not like. By looking at the history, for some reasons, it seems that Sandstein has a strong view against the page although the page has been edited by many experienced Wiki Editors in the past few years Mayonglan ( talk) 13:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Restore and edit further. Examining the article, at this point it is not a G11, though there remains promotional content: the lists of conference keynotes is usually so considered, and so are inclusion of minor awards, including awards given by one's own university). But these can easily be removed by ordinary editing and I will do so after the article is restored. I also object to Sandstein's most recent deletion as wheel-warring. Graeme Bartlett had the right to reverse a deletion, though normally we ask first, but when an admin action is reverted, rightly or wrongly, for the original admin to revert that back to their own state is unambiguous wheel-warring. I do not think a single case is grounds for de-sysop, bur unless Sandstein will himself revert his improper actions, it should probably be discussed at a suitable admin board. (That the action seems to be contradicted by the plain facts makes it a little worse, but wheel-warring is never permitted and I would say just the same were this in fact a highly and unfixable promotional article) . . DGG ( talk ) 18:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• I object to the contention that I was wheel-warring. Per WP:WW, that only applies to actions "you know that another administrator opposes". I undid Graeme Bartlett's out-of-process undeletion only after he did not reply to my messages on his talk page, in which I sought to discuss the issue with him, for three days, while he was otherwise editing actively. Two days before I undid his restoration, I wrote to him: "Because you have not replied to my message, but have edited in the interim, I assume that you do not object to my re-deleting and re-salting the page". Not replying to this for two days, while otherwise editing normally, must in good faith be construed – at least – as a lack of opposition, but such opposition would be required for the reversal to constitute wheel-warring. See [3].  Sandstein  19:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Mayongian did not notify the deleting admin, which he should have done; I have now notified him,and also GB.. DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• I maintain that my WP:CSD#G11 speedy deletion was valid. G11 applies to "pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten". I contend that this applies to the article at issue. It is limited to fawningly listing and highlighting the subject's accomplishments in a manner that one would expect in a CV. Such CVs and lists of accomplishments are how academics promote themselves. The article is therefore exclusively promotional. Furthermore, the content was written by accounts such as the nominator, Mayonglan ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), that are either single-purpose accounts or accounts whose editing pattern suggests that they likely have a close affiliation with the subject. That makes the content profoundly suspect, even to the extent it may superficially appear salvageable, as we would need an editor without a possible conflict of interest to double-check each sentence to verify that it is true and neutrally worded – in effect, rewriting the article. For these reasons, the article also meets the requirement that it would need to be fundamentally rewritten.

  In brief, this is an example of what we used to call vanispamcruftisement, although admittedly one of the less obvious and glaring examples, and such practices should be repressed rather than supported by administrators.  Sandstein  19:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Graeme Barlett's unilateral undeletion was discourteous but it might have been better if Sandstein had brought his protest to DRV rather than unilaterally undoing the unilateral undeletion. I don't think there's any benefit in wrangling over whether there has been a technical violation of WP:WW, since I don't think this case belongs in front of Arbcom, but, trouts all round.

  Do we need a biography of this person? My immediate sniff-test says, no. Despite the long and superficially impressive list of sources in the deleted article, we're missing basic biographical facts. Properly-written biographies begin with some variant of "<Name> (born on <date> in <place>) is a <nationality> <profession>" and go on to explain why we have an article (i.e. an explanation of the chap's notability). In this case we don't even seem to have reliable third party sources for such basic biographical information as his date of birth. What we do seem to have is a laundry list of accomplishments, cobbled together from sources that aren't independent plus sources that are independent but aren't about Professor Sun. I see no hint that anyone's ever disagreed with him at all and no hint that he's ever done anything controversial.

  Still, we can't sustain a speedy deletion in the circumstances. Speedies are for when it's clear-cut, and I see good faith disagreement. We have to send it to AfD. But I wouldn't expect it to survive AfD in its current form.— S Marshall T/ C 19:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• From what I understand, I could not have brought a unilateral restoration to deletion review, because this case is not listed in WP:DRVPURPOSE. It would rather have been incumbent on Graeme Bartlett to bring my original deletion (or re-deletion) here.  Sandstein  19:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• I was seriously considering bringing it to DRV at that point, and Sandstein and I were talking on our talk pages, even if we were not agreeing. However it was re-deleted soon after. I considered that G11 did not apply to this page as editing could easily remove the CV like big lists of awards. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 20:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Okay, Sandstein, I take your point. The important thing I wanted to get across here is that it's undignified for administrators to keep reversing each other. One of you should have sought community input before it got this far and I feel as if you're both somewhat to blame. I don't think it's a major issue and it shouldn't lead to any drama, but I do think it's a slight falling below the expected standards.— S Marshall T/ C 20:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• I understand what you're trying to say, but frankly not every disagreement between administrators needs an ANI thread dedicated to it. In the event, my re-deletion remained uncontested by Graeme Bartlett – both before and after the action, although I do find some of his comments a bit difficult to parse. As far as I and apparently he was concerned, that settled the matter without needing to involve others.  Sandstein  20:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• I agree that we don't need an ANI thread. In this case I had other things to do that I thought were more important rather than continue to support the WP:REFUND request by undeleting again. My opinion is that a speedy delete can be challenged at WP:REFUND. If an administrator agrees that the speedy delete was not appropriate it can be undeleted, but notify the deleting admin. Instead I think we need to focus on the article here rather than how many times it was deleted and restored without community discussion. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 20:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Article looks like spam, but A) the subject appears to meet our inclusion guidelines and B) the process we've had thus far means that AfD is almost certainly the right way to go. The article needs a huge amount of clipping though. I also think feel the admins involved could have dealt with this a LOT better. Hobit ( talk) 22:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • • Actually, I agree that a discussion here serves the same purpose as AN/I. To a considerable extent, this page should be considered the most suitable place for review of admin actions dealing with article deletion. . I've stuck my suggestion above. My apologies to Sandstein. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment on notability Of course articles need checking. But the 3 key elements for notability are easily checkable, the editorships, the membership in the national academy, and the books written. I tend to be skeptical on both counts, and always check them for academic bios , to see if it's really ed. in chief, not just on the ed. board, and the books are actually written, not just edited, or even just chapters, etc. etc. I've checked all 3: for the editorship, see the journal's website--note that this is an international journal from a major publisher , with a very high Impact factor for the subject, 4th out of 138 in the subject category. this meets WP:PROF criterion 8. I have also confirmed the membership in the Chinese Academy of Science, from Xinhua, the official Chinese news agency (also, Royal Irish Academy) That meets criterion 3. As I rather expected from the titles & publishers, Worldcat shows that the books are mostly ones which he has edited, not written entirely. This of course needs to be said in the article. I think editing this group of books from Wiley, a major international publisher, helps notability under WP:PROF, though I would not accept it as showing notability as author. As Sandstein says, items in articles like this need checking, not taking at face value. But there is enough. Similarly, rather than taking the h factor at face value, I'd look at the actual record.

as for promotionalism, yes, I too get quite concerned at bios listing who's who among the awards. We can take several approaches: 1/ we can throw out every promotional bios, even though it shows provable notability and is easily edited, 2/ we can throw out the ones with marginal notability, even if easily edited, 3/ or we can keep anything we can edit into a borderline acceptable article, if it doesn't take too much work.. I follow the middle course. But even so, if it's marginal I'd be reluctant to use speedy, instead of AfD or prod. Borderline or marginal should imply a need for a community decision. (I will admit that, reluctant though I am, if it's truly borderline and needs more editing than I'd like to give it, I have recently been using speedy--like everyone else here, I'm getting pretty exasperated.) And as applied, here, this is not borderline notability: it meets at least 2 of the necessary criteria--and it does not take much editing. I'm still patient enough for this, though who knows what I may feel like in a year or two if the present trend continues. DGG ( talk ) 03:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Notability is not relevant in a G11 speedy deletion, which is what's being reviewed here, and therefore notability merits no discussion here. If an editor deems the subject to be notable, about which I personally have no opinion, they can recreate the article in a non-spam version, possibly after userfication.  Sandstein  06:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Overturn: While the page has a promotional tone it does not seem to me exclusively promotional and could easily be edited to produce a an article on a scholar who I think passes WP:Prof. Speedy deletion under G11 there seems to me wrong and editing the article a better approach. ( Msrasnw ( talk) 10:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)) reply

Category:Native American actors who performed in a Native American language ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

(No one bothered to notify me of the discussion or nomination)

This is a very important category w/ respect to Native American languages as it shows their continued use. It is therefore a valid category for both linguistic as well as cultural purposes. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• At the CfD, Johnpacklambert's argument was that this category is inconsistent with the category structure elsewhere in the wiki. In other words, we don't have Category:French actors who performed in French or Category:Swedish actors who performed in Swedish. Or, perhaps more relevantly, we don't have Category:Jewish actors who performed in Yiddish. This argument seems to have persuaded the closer. The other participant in the debate, Peterkingiron, made a point about "a significant characteristic", which I found a little harder to understand and it does not seem to have persuaded the closer in any case.

  Can DRV sustain this close? There's a real debate to be had about that because it's not obvious that the close is correct. We don't delete content because other parallel content doesn't exist; that's an argument in the form of WP:OCE and DRV does not give weight to argument in that form. (Arguably it is important that categories are consistent. I can understand and sympathise with the reasoning behind Johnpacklambert's point. But there is no weight of policy or guideline to support it.) As far as I can see, the guidelines governing this content are WP:COP and WP:OCAT and I can find nothing that would unambiguously preclude this category in either of them.

  If there's no basis in policy or guideline for the close, then is there at least a consensus to support it? Here I think the closer is probably on firmer ground. The discussion consisted of three opinion statements. Two of them agreed. The one dissenting opinion raised some questions, but the dissenter did not return to answer them. It's not exactly a strong consensus, and in some venues the discussion would have been relisted, but CfD is poorly-attended and I think that's probably as much input from the community as we can reasonably expect.

  Personally I might have gone with "no consensus", but I also think that close might have been within discretion on the basis of consensus if not policy.— S Marshall T/ C 12:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment we don't even have Category:French-language actors or Category:Chinese-language actors. We do not anywhere categorize actors by their language of performance in any way. Language is not a way we categorize actors at all. I think it is more than enough to categorize Native American actors. The next logical division would be by group. Anyway since Navajo, Cherokee, Lenape, Dakota and Salish are all mutually uninteligible the resulting group would not even be able to communicate with eachother in the languages mentioned, so it would hardly be a unified group. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • This one is an exception. We expect that French actors perform in French, do we not? We expect that English actors perform in English, no? Therefore it of course isn't a surprising or noteworthy fact. However, for Native Americans, most people will find it (sadly) unique to see them perform in an indigenous language. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• comment Why is language not a suitable way to characterize actors? Surely the language they perform in is much more closely related to their notability than their nationality? It is also something that can easily and unambiguously be determined --keeping in mind that they might perform in several. Perhaps we don't make those categories because it is 95% of the time the same as their nationality, but that is not always the case. I assume most Native American actors perform in English (or Spanish or French or Portuguese, depending on what is the dominant language in their area); the ones who perform in their own language (or conceivable even other Native American languages) would be a small minority (actually two minorities, those who perform only in their own language, and those who perform in both.) It is reasonable that people should have a way of finding the bios. This would certainly apply to the Jewish example--it matters whether someone of this group performs in English or French or Russian or German; it also matters whether they perform in Yiddish or Ladino (most but not all who have performed in those languages will also have performed in a majority language-- and there's the added possibility of Hebrew, which depending on places and time is a minority or majority language) This is always very prominently mentioned in published work about them when its other than the expected language of the country they live in.

Whether we go further into the individual Native American language would depend on the number of people. That's not a valid objection. (And I note the same argument will apply to writers; singers often perform in multiple languages, including often some they do not actually know, so that's a somewhat different problem.) What can be more basic to any creative professional than the medium they use to practice their profession? DGG ( talk ) 18:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• • Language is a horrible idea because many actors have performed in many languages. Since actors just play parts performing in a language does not actually required knowong the language. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply
    • I'm intrigued! Could you give us an example of an actor performing a part in a language he or she does not speak?— S Marshall T/ C 20:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply
      • Maybe not quite what you're after but Victor Kiam did perform all the ads for Remington Razor's in the native language without being a speaker of those languages [4] apparently claiming to know "29 seconds worth of 15 different languages" -- 62.254.139.60 ( talk) 22:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply
      • Also not necessarily what you are after, Laurel and Hardy shot a few of their early sound films in Spanish, French, Italian, and/or German, speaking their lines phonetically without knowing the languages. (Dubbing dialogue into foreign languages was not yet in common use.) -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC) reply

it is of course necessary to distinguish dubbing, especially in those films where the various characters each speak in their native language, & this can be different in different versions; a famous example is The Leopard (film). I cannot see, btw, why "knowing" the language is relevant--knowing how to pronounce it well enough to be convincing is what is relevant, especially in forms such as opera. We're not classifying whether a person has a command of a language, only whether he acted speaking it. This is almost always unambiguous for any play or film with normal documentation. I remain really puzzled by the objection that some people perform in multiple languages: people can be in multiple categories--this is not the commonly difficult situation where we're trying to find a single adjective for a lede sentence. So the situation is both complicated, and interesting, and worthy of full attention in categories as well as in articles. DGG ( talk ) 06:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• • It might be unambiguous, but it is hardly defining. If you look at a lot of films made in Europe they had international casts, and lots of people have appeared in films made in France, Italy and Spain as well as a few other countries. This would just lead to overcategorization, categorizing people by having appeared in one film in some language. This will just lead to a proliferation of categories, which we do not need. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• relist Seems there are issues that were not brought up at the CfD that might be worth actually discussing. And given the discussion didn't have a lot of participation (2 folks with different views is all we've got), I don't see problem with allowing more discussion. Hobit ( talk) 22:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• different comment If not a category, I can easily make it a list (referencing that will be a piece of cake); I just wasn't sure if that would seem defiant in a way, and if making it a list would lead to "more work, same deletion-discussion". If the discussion here is an exercise in examining policy 5, paragraph 456, section IX and what it says about which categories are allowed, I'm not very interested in that. If the question is about notability of a fact, I'll keep arguing my point, because it is without question a highly notable and relevant one. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Relist per Hobit, otherwise 'endorse by default because the nomination makes no argument why the XfD closure was procedurally incorrect (e.g., wrong assessment of consensus). DRV is not XfD round 2, we're not here to reargue a XfD on the merits.  Sandstein  06:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - Editors do not have a right to weigh in on a deletion discussion regarding something they have contributed to, they are responsible for keeping track of topics and articles, that is why we have a watchlist. No Round 2's here. Tarc ( talk) 16:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Relist. No harm in a fuller debate. Mackensen (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Relist. No harm. More participation at CfD is a good thing. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 09:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment -- Native Americans might be appearing in drama in two contexts (1) in native languages for the benefit of natives (2) Westerns - cowboys v Indians. When I was young, few of the Westerns fell into that category, and my mother told me it was because no one wanted to play the Indians; it was mostly good cowboys v bad ones. The lanugage of most Westerns is English. In the past, I suspect that the Indians were English-speakers who spoke gibberish; that would not be acceptable today, and we would expect a genuine language to be used. It is of course expected that French actors speak French; etc; but Scots actors are unlikely to speak Gaelic (as it is a dying language). Do those Native Americans who are not living on reserves usually speak their native language or are they being assimilated into wider society? My initial vote was on the basis that Native Americans are uniquely qualified to play Native Americans; East Asian acotrs to play Chinese parts; and so on. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment. There is a guideline at WP:OC#PERF against categorizing performers by performance. If this category gets relisted, I doubt it will survive the new CfD. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC) reply