Speedy (musician) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The AFD was closed as Keep however I don't believe there was any consensus to Keep, The non-admin closer ( User:AKS.9955) has said and I quote "sorry, did I misunderstand that in AfD discussions, votes are not counted and instead arguments are considered? I am sorry if I erred, kindly clarify" [1] yet the AFD looks like it was closed solely on the number of keeps and not the actual discussion, IMHO I believe the AFD should have either been closed as, Redirect, No Consensus or just relisted, Anyway thanks, – Davey2010 ^Talk 16:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• It was a question and not a statement (big difference). Also, please make sure you don't give wrong facts on TalkPages / discussions. You were telling me that there was one keep vote, however there were four and ZERO delete vote (apart from nomination). Leaving that aside, lets talk about the merit of the article. WP:MUSBIO very clearly says that; "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart". Well, guess what, this guy has atleast two singles that I noticed ( Siéntelo & Suavemente (song)) that made it to several charts for many years. Whats your point for deleting this article? Please make that point. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• There was 3 keeps and 3 redirects (mine included) so I see no consensus to Keep, Yes and as I stated in the AFD- singles need to have reliable sources too which as I explained at length on the AFD - these songs don't, I explained all of this at the AFD my friend. – Davey2010 ^Talk 17:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Here is one of the sources that clearly states that the song had been on charts of ten different countries (source is already in the article). We can keep on arguing about this but no point. Since the AfD is being discussed here, lets wait for others to review this. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• You're proving my point more and more which is you've failed to read the arguments and have closed solely on how many keeps there was, I'm not arguing tho ? .... You wanted to come here so I'm discussing it ? .... – Davey2010 ^Talk 17:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. The Keep result was a reasonable reading of consensus. "No consensus" would not have been the right result because there were no !votes for outright deletion, and whether to merge content is generally resolved via talkpage discussion rather than XfD. (Also, absent unusual circumstances, filing a DRV to try to overturn a Keep to "No consensus" is generally not a good use of the community's time since the effect is substantially the same.) Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• I'm honestly not trying to be funny nor argue but I genuinely don't see a keep consensus here tho - I'm not trying to say I'm right etc etc but I discussed why I didn't believe the sources were adequate for the BLP so that should've been taken in to account before closing, The No consensus part would be so that it could atleast be renominated in a few months, Thanks, – Davey2010 ^Talk 00:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• At most, Overturn (to "Keep, with recommendations to merge and redirect to Siéntelo".) Clear consensus against deletion, it does not belong at AfD again and does not belong at DRV. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply

SmokeyJoe I absolutely agree there was no clear consensus against deletion however that's my entire point there wasn't any clear consensus in keeping the article either? .... Consensus in the end swayed towards redirecting so surely instead all of this polava it would've made more sense to just redirect ? .... – Davey2010 ^Talk 05:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply

(ec) The discussion, over a month after opening, over a week after the last comment, was heading towards agreement to merge and redirect, which is against keeping the stand-alone article as-is. However, the merge is non-trivial and is subject to being rejected at the target (not that I think that is likely, as the target is a quiet article). I think any editor should feel free to perform the merge. I agree that the closing statement could have been better, the closer should summarise the discussion, and it is not well summarised as "keep". -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply

It took a few moments to work out that no, you were not trying to speedy delete the target. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply

SmokeyJoe - I agree it did go on for a very long time and it did need closing, I'll go to the talkpage in the next few weeks once this has all died down a bit, I completely agree - Maybe if the closer expanded abit then yeah maybe I still would've been a bit pissed but I would've accepted it and would've gone straight to the talkpage, Meh what's done's done I guess, Thanks for replying and for your advice - As always it's much appreciated, Thanks, – Davey2010 ^Talk 06:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Taylor Lianne Chandler ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Taylor Lianne Chandler's page was deleted after vandalism to alter information by sarahj2107. My page has been vandalized and protected repeatedly over the last 18 months. The reason given for deletion were false. History of the page would show valid citations, not Facebook posts. In addition to my relationship with Michael Phelps my whole life and being born intersex was made public. I've written two books and been in an adult film. I have appeared on tv, newspapers and magazines worldwide. I speak on gender and intersex rights. I'm verified on social media with the little blue check mark. I'm one of the highest rated Howard Stern shows with Bradley Cooper. A quick Google search would have provided this information. Articles appear about me to this day. www.facebook.com/TaylorLianneChandler Please restore my page and once again protect it. Add my photo back from my appearance on Howard Stern that was also deleted. Why this editor was given the freedom to do this based on lies and hate is disturbing. 2600:8806:2204:D800:4D28:43EF:E258:8A86 ( talk) 05:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• One quick note - the way you've written this gives off the impression that Sarahj2107 vandalized the page, but it looks like she was the admin that closed the AfD. Now as far as appearing on the Howard Stern Show goes, that by itself doesn't give notability since his show isn't seen as a reliable, notability giving source per Wikipedia's guidelines, although it can lead to coverage in RS. One of the main concerns about your coverage has been that the coverage has been almost solely based on your relationship with Phelps. Typically we don't retain articles when someone is almost solely known for being related to or in a relationship with someone unless that relationship has been the focus of a lot of coverage over a long period of time in various different sources (like academic texts and the like). Offhand the sourcing does seem to focus predominantly on the past relationship and the coverage for non-Phelps topics is fairly slim. What we need is coverage about things other than your past relationship with Phelps, like coverage of the books and talks where the focus isn't on your past relationship. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• So basically, the question here is can you provide more sourcing than what was already in the article where the coverage is on something other than the relationship? Can you provide reviews for the books and films in places Wikipedia would consider reliable? Tabloid sources like TMZ should be avoided. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment: If I read the above correctly, the nominator (the 2600 IP) is claiming to be the article subject (despite the initial use of the third person in the comment). If this is true, it should be verified via OTRS before discussion here proceeds on that basis. I say this not out of any specific suspicion of or disrespect to the person posting, but because there have been instances of such impersonation before. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• @ Tokyogirl79 or Newyorkbrad: Requesting temporary undeletion for this review if the content has no problems preventing it.— Godsy^{( TALK} _CONT) 02:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• I've restored it - there's nothing there that would prevent that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - All of the reliable sources used in the article content in question are about an alleged relationship the subject had with Michael Phelps which leads me to WP:BLP1E concerns (and the AfD nominator expressed other applicable ones clearly). That aside, and more on point to this DRV: The claims that Sarahj2107 engaged in misconduct are baseless, they acted in accordance with the deletion policy. There was no opposition and enough support for deletion to make this close and subsequent deletion unambiguously per consensus.— Godsy^{( TALK} _CONT) 04:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply