Misee Harris (actress) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

(Hi Wiki editors, please re-check the notability of this article again. I think this article is notable & should not be deleted from wiki) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khocon ( talk • contribs) 05:21, 22 January 2015‎ (UTC) reply

• To be clear, this is about my G4 redeletion at the Misee Harris (actress) title; the article was originally at Misee Harris ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore). The reasoning that Khocon gave on my talk page, while it failed to convince me, is more in line with what's expected at DRV than the above. — Cryptic 05:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn G4 - comparing histories, new sources include [1] [2] [3] [4] [5], meaning the old AfD can't be applied. Quite frankly, reading the old AfD compels me to wikilink Wikipedia:Systemic bias and remind people that "aimed at a black audience" is not a good reason to dismiss a source as unreputable/unreliable. That audience is far less niche than, e.g., members of the Royal Astronomical Society, but we'd (rightly) laugh is people used that to discredt Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society as a source. Wily D 09:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Hmm, I think it's a bit of a stretch to compare those sources with the Royal Astronomical Society. There are good reasons why Wikipedia values scholarly/academic sources higher than newspapers. But with that said, I don't see any real harm in having a proper AfD about this content and I suggest we do, in the interests of FairProcess. I think it's fairly likely that the AfD would delete the content, but the point is to show that we're giving a fair chance and removing the material after a full discussion rather than summarily and arbitrarily.— S Marshall T/ C 10:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I don't mean to suggest that things written in MNRAS are as likely to be wrong as things written in Nature or anything (except the spelling, which is an atrocious, haphazardly assembled cornucopia of the worst features of British and American spelling ... but I digress). Just that it has a niche/limited audience. The original AfD relies heavily on discounting sources because they're aimed at African Americans, which is a far wider demographic than astronomers - but much less well represented among our ranks, I suspect. Wily D 14:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• G4 appears inappropriate given new sources identified by WilyD. overturn speedy. Certainly no objections to another AfD. Hobit ( talk) 04:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• I nominated it for G4, but now I'm on the fence. I think it could have been G4ed when first recreated (and I'd appreciate it if an admin gives the creating editor, who did recreate it about a day after the deletion, a poke), but I hadn't appreciated how much additional coverage she'd gotten after the Ferguson outrage. If it were recreated now, I wouldn't AFD it without a bit of head-scratching. Pinkbeast ( talk) 11:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Reply to self: as far as I can see the "(actress)" bit is entirely spurious - there isn't another notable Misee Harris - and suggest if it is recreated it should be in conjunction with a move. Pinkbeast ( talk) 11:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• I imagine such a move would be uncontroversial. Wily D 15:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply