Tom Bloom ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Your reason here ThomasOliverBloom ( talk) 16:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Reopen, the nom was by sockpuppet User:Mdtemp ( already identified as such at the time of the nom) so that should void it, and a new look at it seems appropriate. Randy Kryn ( talk) 16:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Courtesy ping to Joe Decker, who was not contacted by the opener. — C.Fred ( talk) 16:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Reopen/open new AfD. On the one hand, the nomination was by a suspected sockpuppet. On the other hand, it looks like there was at least one good-faith delete !vote. Further, the article read very...spammy at the time of deletion, and this DRV was apparently opened by the subject. Frankly, I have concerns about the motives for the restoration and suitability of the article, but I'd rather give the community a chance to look at the text, to contribute new sources if they exist, and have a week to fix it. — C.Fred ( talk) 16:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Yes, the AfD was nominated by a sock, but two other people supported deleting it, nobody has offered any argument against deletion (even here), and the OP is apparently the article subject. I don't see any value in reopening it. Hut 8.5 17:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC) reply

You know, I think you have a point there. If the article was flawed to begin with, better to either let an independent editor start from scratch or, worst case, pull the old text back to draft space. — C.Fred ( talk) 17:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse as reflecting one good-faith registered editor and a valid close, as well as that we really should be almost as wary of efforts at autobiography as of sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi, I believe much of the page in question covered my studio, students, and instruction over the past 45 years. I am dropping some links and I hope this helps. Thank you, Tom Bloom https://books.google.com/books?id=-s8DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA30#v=onepage&q&f=false https://www.amazon.com/Complete-Handbook-Karate-Technical-Advancing/dp/B001NP1Q36 https://ma-mags.com/srchmag.php?SrchFor=tom+bloom&SrchHow=cover&Search=Search I found a backlink to the page in question. Please review. https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=1062494459 ThomasOliverBloom ( talk) 20:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Tom Bloom https://www.imdb.com/name/nm2271117/?ref_=nmls_hd https://books.google.com/books?id=iNcDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA93&dq=tom+bloom&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj-isfljIf1... https://books.google.com/books?id=zNoDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA88&dq=tom+bloom&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj-isfljIf1... https://books.google.com/books?id=YNcDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA33&dq=tom+bloom&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj-isfljIf1... https://books.google.com/books?id=FdIDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA52&dq=tom+bloom&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj-isfljIf1... https://books.google.com/books?id=LtkDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA78&dq=tom+bloom&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj-isfljIf1... — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasOliverBloom ( talk • contribs) 19:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse; allow creation via AfC. The nominator wasn't a sockpuppet of an already-blocked user at the time of the AfD (neither Mdtemp nor Astudent0 were blocked until 2016), so there's no policy basis for retroactively discounting the !vote. Since this is an autobiography, I think any recreation attempt needs to go through articles for creation. (No opinion on whether the sources above are sufficient to establish notability: I'm skeptical but this certainly isn't my field of expertise.) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 22:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC) reply

I clearly see what happened now. If you scroll to the bottom of this page, you see one sockpuppet talking to another most participating in this conversation have been deleted from Wikipedia and are talking about Railroading the Martial Arts Project... you even have one puppet saying goodbye to another after his deletion. /info/en/?search=User_talk:Mdtemp ThomasOliverBloom ( talk) 23:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Tom Bloom reply

• Let result stand; allow creation via AfC. I don't see a fatal flow in the deletion discussion. If an article is to be created about Bloom, then frankly, it's probably best created by independent editors and working from secondary sources, so the best way forward is with a draft. — C.Fred ( talk) 04:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Undelete and allow immediate renomination and appropriate time for improvement. We should not reward socks at all, to include not counting this discussion as legitimate, and there's nothing in the article, per what other people have said about it, that would be horrid to have living live for another week. Jclemens ( talk) 21:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I think that we should not reward autobiographical self-promoters either. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • You'd rather what, then? We reward people who hire more subtle firms who hide their COI better? Writing a Wikipedia article about yourself is a bad idea, but one that our current processes can and should handle both transparently and equitably. Jclemens ( talk) 20:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Seven years ago, it was deleted due to lack of coverage. Are there new sources and someone is preventing re-creation? —- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 13:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC) reply

The Burning (Seinfeld) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This article has been turned into a redirect page because "[there isn't] a single source that discusses the topic at length". Jericho735 ( talk) 15:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Strong Overturn per WP:IAR I believe this article deserves its own page. The sitcom Seinfeld has 171 episodes, nine of which are extended two-part episodes, resulting in an official total of 180. Of Seinfeld's 171 (or 180) episodes, "The Burning" is the only episode which does not have its own article (which has been turned into a redirect page). Information about this episode certainly exists online. It simply does not many sense for this to be the only episode out of 180 that leads to a redirect page. Jericho735 ( talk) 15:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC) reply

The fact that there is an article for every other Seinfeld episode doesn't mean that they're all notable, and even if they were, that wouldn't make this episode independently notable. Find multiple, independent, reliable sources that discuss this episode at length, and you can recreate the article: it hasn't actually been deleted. It's just been turned into a redirect, so all the text is still there in the version history. -- Slashme ( talk) 12:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Strong Overturn per WP:IAR, WP:COMMONSENSE, and per the Keep research and comment by Andrew Davidson which includes sources. When a series of 179 long-term and long-accepted articles is culled by one this creates a "Deletionists Delight" precedent which could upend thousands of page. IAR works on anything on Wikipedia, and if there was anyplace for its appropriate use it's in this review request. Randy Kryn ( talk) 15:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• WP:COMMONSENSE states "Why isn't "use common sense" an official policy? It doesn't need to be; as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy." Randy Kryn ( talk) 16:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Redirect is as bad as a deletion, as the topic goes from a full article to being in the background behind the curtain. And if a page has great longevity combined with many daily views that counts for something in the realms of Commonsense if not in the wikilegal language used to remove those pages. Please also read the AfD, where Andrew placed several perfectly good sources which seemed to have been ignored by the closer. Randy Kryn ( talk) 20:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Disagree that the sources were good, as per Slashme ( talk · contribs) 18:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC) reply

— SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse – the closure assessed the consensus correctly: editors made reasonable arguments that invoked our guidelines, and there was no basis for discounting the majority view that this episode didn't require its own article. It's very rare for DRV to overturn AfDs on substantive (i.e. not procedural) grounds, and this doesn't seem like a case for doing that. There are two options here: either coverage does in fact exist to satisfy the GNG, in which case you're free to recreate the article, or coverage doesn't exist to satisfy the GNG, in which case IAR doesn't apply because it's not in the encyclopedia's best interest to create permanently unsourceable stubs. In either case, there's no reason to overturn the closure. As for the idea that this is unprecedented, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Shower Head, which closed with consensus to redirect almost a decade ago. It was later recreated with new sources, a possibility that is available here as well. In sum, the closure was correct, the arguments were reasonable, and the outcome wasn't unprecedented. While you're welcome to recreate the article if there really are sufficient sources to satisfy the GNG, there's nothing else for us to do here. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 17:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• I am probably at least partially to blame for this DRV because I pointed out to Jericho735 that If you disagree with the outcome of a deletion discussion such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Burning (Seinfeld) the appropriate venue is WP:DRV. [1]. I am also the editor who reverted Jericho735 on The Burning (Seinfeld) to restore the version that implements the outcome of the AfD that resulted in Redirect. Editors advocating for turning this redirect into an article could have cited the sources that would have established that the topic is notable. I would not have reverted if sources had been added that demonstrate that it had received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. But that did not happen, and no evidence that such sources exist have been provided. The consensus at the AfD should therefor not be overturned. The argument that an article that is part of a series of articles that cover related topics should be kept even if it has no sourcing is not supported by any policy, and while it might appear inconsistent to have articles on all episodes except one, merely being one in a series does not make a topic notable; there has to be significant coverage. If it exists, add it. Vexations ( talk) 17:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The close reflects the discussion. As there was no deletion, further discussion on new sources should occur on the talk page of the target page of the redirect. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse no indication that the closure was anything other than a reflection of the discussion. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 22:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. Consistency is a virtue. Unless there is really some evidence that the episodes differ in notability, they should be handled the same way. (Personally, I think we should do combination articles for episodes, not individual ones, but individual ones for important series have long been accepted here.) DGG ( talk ) 16:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse and encourage a different forum. We need a wider discussion of when individual episodes of TV shows should have stand-alone articles. This is not the forum to have that wider discussion. The local consensus of the discussion was correctly determined to support a redirect. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse (reluctantly) but allow re-creation in the appropriate manner. I don't think the close was necessarily correct but it happened a year ago. Time to move on. Calidum 19:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn Closer inappropriately accorded nonzero weight to !votes that failed to address the inclusion of summaries of this episode in dead tree books about the show as a whole. An episode summary in such a book is independent (TV studios don't write books; someone else made a decision that it was profitable to publish such a work), reliable, nontrivial RS. An episode summary is necessarily transformative, in that it has to decide what the main parts of the episode to include and which details to leave out, and hence a secondary source, not primary. Jclemens ( talk) 21:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The closer would have interpreted the consensus incorrectly if he was to discount !votes that expressly did not agree with Andrew Davidson's comment in which he brought up three books. A consensus formed among subsequent participants that such sources aren't sufficient. They were characterized as: not secondary, a TV Guide, a fan work, and an index. It is not the case that delete/redirect side failed to address the keep argument with regard to those books. The close was right. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 20:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  Except that if a "consensus" exists that RS'es aren't RS'es and a closer is supposed to go along with that, then AfDs are pointless, and everything becomes nothing but a nose count--all people have to do is say "New York Times? Well, it's generally an RS, but we don't think this article is". You might think that's absurd, but we've seen similar arguments at individual bio AfDs. It's simply unsustainable for non-policy-based prejudices to be accorded weight. Jclemens ( talk) 19:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Comment, as others suggest, the closer ignoring the three independent books should be an instant overturn. Jerry Seinfeld or the producers didn't write the books, they are totally independent of the show. People write books about the Apollo missions and they are regarding as good sources, and that is only one of thousands of examples where someone writes an independent book acceptable as establishing notability. I just don't get it, and this discussion hasn't made it any clearer. Randy Kryn ( talk) 21:09, 31 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• The AfD was close was reasonable given the discussion. I didn't see it in the AfD, but this A.V. Club review helps a bit. If people can find a few more reviews... Hobit ( talk) 21:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Since the A.V. Club is a reliable source ("The A.V. Club is considered generally reliable for film, music and TV reviews.") can't it just be added to the article and call it a day? With the three books and this new find the page seems fine to once again complete the set of episode articles. Randy Kryn ( talk) 21:52, 31 December 2021 (UTC) reply

It's close. I'd say one more reliable review would do it pretty easily. I just couldn't find one. A found a paragraph here and a paragraph there, but not much other than plot summary. Hobit ( talk) 01:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Based mainly on the second source listed by Cunard (below) I'm now at endorse but restore. The close was correct given the discussion, but we're easily at WP:N with two actual reviews and a bunch of other sources that discuss this episode. As always, hats off to Cunard. I searched for quite a while but couldn't find that second review... Hobit ( talk) 15:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Restore per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Significant coverage
     1. Sims, David (2012-03-29). "Seinfeld: "The Wizard"/"The Burning"". The A.V. Club. Archived from the original on 2021-12-31. Retrieved 2021-12-31. {{ cite news}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 2022-01-01 suggested ( help)

        The review notes: "Here we have (excluding the finale) the last appearance of Puddy, and one of the best! ... But even though Kruger is particularly funny in this episode (making his chair spin three times without using his feet), George’s frustration feels a little lacking in context. ... The return of Mickey (again, excluding the finale, this is Danny Woodburn’s final appearance) doesn’t quite live up to some of his previous appearances. He and Kramer play patients for medical students and try to tap into their “characters” as best they can, but their rivalry comes off as forced, and guest appearances by Brian Posehn (who has one great line) and Daniel Dae Kim end up being the highlight."

     2. Durgin, Vance (1998-03-22). "Second-half absurdity mars 'The Burning' episode". Orange County Register. Archived from the original on 2021-12-31. Retrieved 2021-12-31. {{ cite news}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 2022-01-01 suggested ( help)

        The review notes: "CRITIQUE: Solidly in the tradition of the show's fabled irreverence, a funny first half was followed by a more absurd second half marred by the jokey priest and the absurd tractor story angle. But you can't expect a masterpiece this late in the series run. And there was a funny Titanic joke. "So, that old woman, she's just a liar, right? " George asks. "And a bit of a tramp, too, if you ask me," Jerry concludes."

     3. Nigro, Nicholas (2015). Seinfeld FAQ: Everything Left to Know About the Show About Nothing. Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Applause Books. ISBN  978-1-55783-857-5. Retrieved 2021-12-31 – via Google Books.

        The book has a 285-word subsection titled "Episode 166: “The Burning” (original air date: March 19, 1998)". The book notes: "With the final season winding down comes “The Burning,” written by Jennifer Crittenden, in which Elaine discovers that David Puddy is not only very religious-minded, but believes that non-believers, like Elaine, will burn in Hell for eternity. Other storylines in this episode find George’s seemingly clever machinations on the job saddling him with more work than ever. And Jerry’s got a new girlfriend, Sophie, whose voice he does not recognize after an “it’s me” message is left on his answering machine. As things turn out, she doesn’t recognize his voice on the telephone, either, believing instead that she is talking with a friend named Rafe. She reveals to Rafe, who’s actually Jerry, that she has not apprised Jerry of a certain incident in her life dubbed the “tractor story.”"

  2. Less significant coverage
     1. Lavery, David; Dunne, Sara Lewis, eds. (2006). "Seinfeld Episode and Situation Guide". Seinfeld, Master of Its Domain: Revisiting Television's Greatest Sitcom. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group. p. 254. ISBN  978-0-8264-1802-9. Retrieved 2021-12-31 – via Google Books.

        The book notes: "(164) The Burning (9016), March 19, 1998. W: Crittenden. D: Ackerman. J: Learns the truths about his 'It's me' girlfriend's tractor story. G: Tries to master the art of leaving on a high note, but it gets him extra work at Kruger. E: Discovers Puddy is religious but is upset he is not trying to save her from hell. K: Joins Mickey in acting out diseases at Mount Sinai."

     2. Ritchie, Chris (2012). Performing Live Comedy. London: Methuen Drama. ISBN  978-1-408-14724-5. Retrieved 2021-12-31 – via Google Books.

        The book notes: "Although reiteration is not part of Jerry Seinfeld's usual stand-up routine, he emphasizes this point in the Seinfeld episode 'The Burning' (series 9, episode 17). George is in a meeting where, for once, he actually makes a good suggestion, which earns him rare approval from his colleagues. However, he quickly squanders this goodwill with a weaker followthrough and is disconcerted. Later, when talking to Seinfeld in the college shop, he relates how he had them for a brief moment but then lost them. Jerry tells him that he has to leave them on a high note and refers to this as showmanship: [more discussion]"

     3. Rohan, Virginia (1998-03-19). "Puddy come lately – Patrick Warburton's a rising star on 'Seinfeld' – Just in time to say goodbye". The Record. Archived from the original on 2021-12-31. Retrieved 2021-12-31. {{ cite news}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 2022-01-01 suggested ( help)

        The article notes: "Tonight's "Seinfeld" episode, "The Burning," reveals a most surprising layer of Puddy. He's a religious guy, who believes Elaine (Julia Louis-Dreyfus) may be headed for hell."

     4. Tracy, Kathleen (1998). Jerry Seinfeld: The Entire Domain. Secaucus, New Jersey: Carol Publishing Group. pp.  308– 309. ISBN  1-55972-474-9. Retrieved 2021-12-31 – via Internet Archive.

        The book notes:

        172. "The Burning" (March 19, 1998)

        Summary: Elaine discovers that Puddy listens to religious radio stations. George tries to always leave a room on a high note. Kramer and Mickey get jobs feigning ailments for medical students. Jerry doesn't recognize his girlfriend Sophie when she calls and says, "It's me." Sophie verifies you can get venereal disease from a tractor seat.

        Of special note: This episode was dedicated "In Memory of Our Friend Lloyd Bridges." Bridges appeared as "It's go time!" Izzy in episodes 151, "The English Patient," and 160, "The Blood."

     5. Fitzmaurice, Larry (2021-09-01). "All 169 Seinfeld Episodes, Ranked From Worst to Best". Vulture. Archived from the original on 2021-12-31. Retrieved 2021-12-31. {{ cite news}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 2022-01-01 suggested ( help)

        The article notes: "28. “The Burning” (Season 9). This was a great example of Seinfeld’s writers skirting the boundaries of ‘90s network TV to break taboos — specifically talk of sexually transmitted diseases (gonorrhea from a tractor?). But “The Burning” isn’t just successful because of its provocative nature. Any episode with Puddy is a relative gem, and his and Elaine’s ongoing argument over whether she is going to Hell ends in a revelation that fits Seinfeld to a T: They both are — and so are the rest of the cast, too."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Burning to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard ( talk) 11:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  Your three “significant coverage” examples do not read to me as even “coverage”, but as mostly repetition of primary source material. Where is the transformational content? WP:NOTPLOT. What is the author of the putative secondary source saying about the material? Or is it nicely wrapped fan coverage? SmokeyJoe ( talk) 14:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  The version before redirection is a WP:NOTPLOT failure. The article contained facts and plot summary. Advice for improving these things is as WP:WAF, and the redirected article was pretty extreme in having no content that said anything about the fiction. No critical review, no real world impact. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 14:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Comment - This is an edge case. On the one hand, I agree with User:DGG that consistency is important, and that every other Seinfeld episode has an article. If books have been written about the series, then the books are indeed independent reliable coverage for every episode. Maybe the fancruft has grown up; in any case, some of the fans are scholars, and they write reliable sources. On the other hand, an editor with an unspellable name makes the point that a discussion of the merits of having an article about every episode, of a large number of series, should be somewhere else. I agree, but is there a reason why this one episode should be cut down to a redirect? Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse and Allow recreation The close was appropriate based on the discussion. If an article can be created today that meets GNG, that will make a great addition to the project. -- Enos733 ( talk) 06:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn I've watched this discussion for a couple days. It's a complicated one. There is serious value to the consistency argument. Throwing around claims of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ignores the actual point of referring to other stuff -- it is not an argument about content itself but about reader expectations. Having articles for every Seinfeld episode but one clearly does readers a disservice. Whether every episode of Seinfeld should or should not have an article from a broad existential point of view is not an issue to be settled by a single AfD. More pressingly, I concur with Jclemens' stance that weight was not properly accorded to !votes discussing offline sources, which poses a fundamental problem for the close and is why I lean towards "overturn" rather than "recreate". (There are more claims to notability than those alone, as discussed by other DRV participants, but those wouldn't clear up the issue of overturn-vs-recreate.) Vaticidal prophet 13:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and Relist to consider more carefully whether we really want this to be the only Seinfeld episode that doesn't have an article. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Consistency is not important. In fact, Wikipedia has rules like WP:OCE whose whole purpose is to make us take each decision separately without regard to other similar decisions we may have made in the past. Regardless of what happens with other episodes of whichever US sitcom we're talking about, this one needs sources that are specifically about it.— S Marshall  T/ C 13:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  Consistency is somewhat important. WP:NOTDIRECTORY is policy. Insisting that every item has an article sounds very like the principle of a directory. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 13:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC) reply