Amy Juergens ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

• Unprotection - I'd like to create the page Amy Juergens, but it is currently protected. I can't figure out why it was protected. I plan on cleaning up and starting other articles for The Secret Life of the American Teenager. Nk3play2 ( talk) 04:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply
  • it was being persistently recreated in a really careless manner, and before the show actually appeared. But that was a year ago, and there's no reason not to unprotect. Be aware that even for main characters like her, there is likely to be some opposition unless you have references to substantial specific discussions of her from good sources. I'd suggest going slowly and very carefully on the others--try for some articles so good they won;t be even challenged. DGG ( talk) 21:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply
  • It seems there is an article at Amy Jurgens - deliberately misspelled to get around the protection? Anyway there are a few paragraphs there and a couple of references, I'd say it should be moved into the correct spelling, and any further consideration really isn't within the scope of DRV. Several other characters from List of characters in The Secret Life of the American Teenager currently have standalone articles. -- Stormie ( talk) 01:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Order of the Acropolis ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Deleted and eventually salted as a hoax. However, a new user (clearly a sockpuppet, but a well-meaning one) posted a link on my talk page which at least establishes the existence of the group. Notability is still up in the air, so I thought I'd bring the issue here. The link may be found here: [1] PMDrive1061 ( talk) 15:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• yes notability looks like an issue. unless the user can provide meaningful third party coverage its not worth restoring this just to delete is as non-notable. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• My standing recommendation for articles that have gotten themselves salted after repeated deletion is to bring a sourced userspace draft here for discussion. Stifle ( talk) 20:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• (re)Create in userspace first. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Wokai ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I see this article was recently handled here, but Euwyn has now written a version on his user page that has been fixed up to comply with the criticism at the AfD, which included notability concerns, reliable sourcing, and promotional writing. I don't know what condition the article was in when it was AfD'd but I think we should at least consider reintroducing it to the mainspace. Them From Space 08:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• I certainly think this can be fleshed out with this msnbc article and this asianweek piece as sources (currently the article only links to one newsweek piece). WIth the introduction of those two externals, Allow Recreation. Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 09:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• I'm still seeing sourcing concerns in the article as drafted, but Usrnme h8er brings up a couple of decent ones. I'm with him that a version with the new sources added would probably be acceptable. I'd just like to see this new draft at DRV before proceeding, please.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 11:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks for the input. I've revised the version on my userpage to include references to the AsianWeek and MSNBC piece. Would certainly appreciate further edits. Euwyn ( talk) 18:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• I think it's good enough to go back in now. DGG ( talk) 21:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• I too agree that the userspace draft addresses the concerns from the AfD discussion and would support moving it back into mainspace. -- Stormie ( talk) 01:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation and move back into the mainspace. Definitely looks good enough. MuZemike 02:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Alexis Grace ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

• Some links for You: First Afd Nomination(kept) * Second Nomination (deleted) * Deletion Review 13 March (No Consensus). A DRV on the 12 March was merged into the 13th one. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Deletion violated Wikipedia:WikiProject Idol series#Guidelines (regardless of alleged "consensus" which was nonexistent), and it has since been used to justify 36 other inappropriate Idol-related deletions. RBBrittain ( talk) 01:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Correction: It was 38 other deletions, though 3 of them have already been rejected; I commented "speedy close" on the other 35 because they (like this one) violate the established guideline for AI contestants. -- RBBrittain ( talk) 02:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Uphold deletion. The thing is, I didn't think the article should've been deleted. But the admin's decision was reasoned and honestly not incorrect. So I'm not sure it can be overturned. "I disagree with the deletion!" isn't a reason to overturn it IMO. Probably my pro-admin bias but there we are. :) And Dalejenkins actions are not the fault of the admin here. -- User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 05:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Coming off a small break to comment: I won't comment further, given that I've gone over this many times before, but here are my points: 1) This has already been before deletion review once (can someone find the link) - what new information does the nominator have? 2) Violating arbitrary, non-community driven guidelines is irrelevant 3) I think the mass nominations you refer to are wildly inappropriate for a variety of reasons, and I am particularly annoyed by mass AfDs of any type. The nominator there is using this example to justify his actions, but that is not a deletion reason (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Similarly "being used to justify deleting" is not a procedural fault in the AfD, which is what DRV is about. Go and use the other stuff exists argument on the AfDs by all means, and tell Dale that he needs a more substantive argument, but this second DRV is a waste of our energies. Fritzpoll ( talk) 08:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure. In my opinion the the main reason given for overturning is not a valid reason. Unless a wikiproject guideline has been widely accepted by the community then it should carry little or no weight in a AfD arguement - as appears to be the reasoning at the first DRV. Taking what, to the the nominator is a more minor issue, but which is a valid DRV arguement, that the closure was against consensus I feel that this AfD could plausiably have gone either way and was within the closing admins discretion to close what way they felt fit - personally I think delete was the correct outcome. With that in mind I can't see how there was any procedural errors so I have to endorse the closure as correct. Dpmuk ( talk) 18:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Wikiproject guidelines do not overarch general notability guidelines and polices. If it fails the GNG then its fails the inclusion criteria and wikiprojects do not have the right to establish walled gardens of their own where general guidelines do not apply. Get a specific notability guideline accepted if you like but wikiprojects don't trump project wide policy. Therefore endorse simply because no valid reason to overturn the AFD/DRV have been presented. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, WikiProjects don't get to set lower notability criteria for articles in their purview. Deletion process has been followed. Stifle ( talk) 20:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply

  FWIW, wikiprojects certainly can set different guidelines & even lower ones-- if their guidelines are accepted by the wider community. The practical test of whether they're accepted is AfD. (I have no opinion on the particular article) DGG ( talk) 21:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply

  Absolutely. Feel free to read in "unilaterally" before "set", unless you don't like split infinitives. Stifle ( talk) 19:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. I don't see any versions in the deleted history that ever contained any more content than the coverage currently at American Idol (season 8) - just a paragraph of biography and details of her performance in that show. If she has any other claim to notability, and if that can be supported by significant coverage in reliable sources, work up an article in userspace and bring it to DRV. p.s. if the Idol WikiProject would like to work on coverage of Idol contestants which goes beyond Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, there is an Idol wiki at idol.wikia.com which is, excuse the pun, somewhat idle. -- Stormie ( talk) 01:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse – the GNG takes precedence over the sub-guidelines like BIO, CORP, ATHLETE, etc. This is no different. The sub-guidelines are meant as a more common-sense aid and idiot's guide (let's face it, not everyone here has a master's degree) in gauging notability for recurring cases in which such articles would not be likely to meet the notability standard (as opposed to will not meet the notability standard). If there is a minimal amount of coverage in a few independent reliable sources, then it passes, regardless whether or not that article meets that particular sub-guideline. MuZemike 02:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, no new arguments presented, and the AfDs started by Dalejenkins are a separate issue. I'm not particularly happy with them either, but the articles' supporters will not find relief here. Another discussion link: the first AfD had a DRV closed as relist and was relisted as a separate second AfD. Flatscan ( talk) 03:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure As a practical matter, the test for any notability guideline is AfD. This article failed that test, and closing admin accurately assessed consensus there. Ray ^Talk 07:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply