Kevin Patel ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

meets GNG, significant coverage in Men's Health, [1], yahoo uk [2], voyagela [3]. Tidekazan ( talk) 21:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Allow Draft - Having seen the references, I disagree with the G11A7, because I think that a credible claim of significance is established. Whether general notability is satisfied is a matter for AFD to decide. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC) reply

  @ Robert McClenon It was an A7 Robert not a G11. CommanderWaterford ( talk) 12:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC) reply

  I knew it was an A7, which is why it was overridden by a credible claim of significance. Random error. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• No idea what was in the article (not seeing it in Google cache) but sources would seem to clear the GNG and certainly over the A7 bar. So no idea if the deleting admin made a mistake, merely that the topic should be allowed to exist. If the article was horrible, fine, just recreate. Otherwise restore and allow someone to fix it. Hobit ( talk) 06:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC) reply
  • It is now available. Sorry for the delay. Wily D 10:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Thanks! Hobit ( talk) 12:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Meeting WP:N is far more than needed to overcome an A7. overturn with a side of trout. Hobit ( talk) 12:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• There's nothing in the article text that would make me hesitate to A7. All three of those sources were there, though, as well as [4], [5], [6], [7], and a few more of lesser quality. Though I'm not usually in favor of summary moves from articlespace to draft, that's what was indicated here. — Cryptic 08:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC) reply
  • @ Cryptic: But A7 is "a lower standard than notability". So if this meets WP:N (which I think it plainly does), it's also well over the bar for A7. Put differently, reliable independent sources covering a topic is a claim of importance. Hobit ( talk) 15:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC) reply
    • I don't think what I said is incompatible with that? Or, for that matter, what you wrote before the temp undeletion - the article text is legitimately horrible, and doesn't say why these sources have taken an interest in him. Because these sources are there, it isn't A7able and shouldn't be deleted, but it shouldn't be left untouched in mainspace like that either. — Cryptic 13:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC) reply
      • I think that moving something out of mainspace that meets our inclusion guidelines is generally a bad idea. WP:TNT is a thing, but I don't think it applies here. And I took a "summary move" to mean without an AfD. That I'd strongly disagree with. Hobit ( talk) 16:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - Vox article is, at a minimum, too much sourcing for an A7 deletion to be at all justifiable. Wily D 10:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• I'd say that you can inoculate an article against A7 by citing the reliable sources that have noted the person. (I wish that was the only way you could inoculate it against A7, but sadly not.) I think this one shouldn't have been A7ed because of that.— S Marshall  T/ C 12:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn articles which cite press coverage like that shouldn't be deleted under A7. The wording of A7 makes it clear that A7 is a lower bar to meet than notability. Furthermore whether something is notable is evaluated through AfD and PROD, not speedy deletion, so any article which indicates the subject might be notable is also not a good A7 candidate. Hut 8.5 18:36, 8 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn but note that the text of CSD A7 does not clearly indicate that sources can be where claims of significance can be found, unlike WP:SIGNIFICANCE which clearly states this. I'm not inclined to say this is troutworthy: if there isn't an unambiguous claim of significance made in the text of the article, the article is at risk of being speedied; this would be true even if we fixed the text of CSD A7 because human nature being as it is, admins are usually going to make the judgement call based on the text of the article, not on the basis of researching the references found. Maybe it would be better to draftify articles that fall foul of WP:SIGNIFICANCE if they have sources rather than delete them? — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC) reply
  • "A claim of significance in a source" is the wrong standard to use. It's too lenient in that, for example, a bio shouldn't be immunized from speedy deletion because it links the subject's blog, no matter what they claim on that blog. And it's too strict in that a sysop should be referring source evaluation to AFD rather than doing it themself, except in the very clearest of cases. The right standard is a not-patently-trivial mention in a not-patently-unreliable source. — Cryptic 13:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn I'm not convinced this should be kept, but with the sourcing it leaps high over the A7 bar. SportingFlyer T· C 15:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn Speedy A7 and send to AfD if anyone wants to, per all of the above, with the exception that a single reference is enough regardless of whether or not it's an RS or not. A7 is entirely unrelated to V or N. Jclemens ( talk) 17:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I'll disagree with that. A single reference isn't always enough. If there is no claim of notability and the sources don't count toward WP:N, A7 would still apply as I read it. So just linking to a workplace directory or your own blog isn't going to prevent an A7. Hobit ( talk) 23:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC) reply
    • It would depend on what the blog asserted, actually. If I make a credible claim of significance on my own blog, even if it's not picked up anywhere else, that needs a discussion rather than an A7. I mean, you're right if an article said "Joe Blow is awesome" and linked to the dictionary.com entry for "awesome" then yes, that's not a credible claim of significance despite having a link. Jclemens ( talk) 02:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC) reply
      • I'll still not agree with that. A7 is about what's in the article. A non-reliable source in the article isn't something I'd expect people to chase down. I mean imagine if there were 20 of them, only one of which made such as assertion. Hobit ( talk) 16:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC) reply
        • Speedy deletions are to be unambiguous; nothing with 20 links should be speedied in any routine event (except, of course, if G10, 11, or 12 applied), we have PROD and AfD for sorting out things like that. The temptation with declining admin:editor ratios is to expand the leeway for speedy deletion, but that is not actually the right way to solve the problem. Jclemens ( talk) 05:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Having read the article as nominated for CSD-A7, I find the action entirely inconsistent with the article in the state it was at the time. CommanderWaterford, would you care to explain your actions? Was this just a Twinkle mistake? Jclemens ( talk) 05:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and trout. That was nowhere near being even remotely close to an A7 candidate. The article contained at least three credible claims of significance, each of which would have disqualified it individually, and multiple mentions in sources at least 7 of the references would individually have disqualified it from speed deletion. Anyone thinking this was suitable for speedy deletion needs to reread the policy before taking any more admin actions. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC) reply