-
Plastique Tiara (
talk|
|
history|
logs|
links|
watch) (
XfD|
restore)
The article was discussed at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plastique Tiara in March to April 2019, and the discussion resulted in an unambiguous consensus to redirect the title to
RuPaul's Drag Race (season 11). The article was then recreated twice in May 2019, contrary to consensus, so I protected it. On 21 September 2022 an editor notified me that the article had been re-created, evading protection by changing the title to
Plastique Tiara (Drag queen), so I deleted that page. I also deleted all of the history of the original article except the redirect, because in my experience in this situation the presence of the history from before the deletion discussion serves to encourage re-creation, as it's so easy to cut and paste. However,
Another Believer asked me to restore the history, so I did so. Another Believer has now asked for the protection to be removed to allow re-creation of the article. Personally, I have no opinion one way or the other whether the page should exist: everything I have done has been done as an uninvolved administrator in response to requests from other editors. However, I am not willing to unilaterally overturn a clear consensus in a deletion discussion, so I am bringing it here for discussion. Another Believer's reasons for wanting to be allowed to re-create he article are set out at
Talk:Plastique Tiara#Notability.
I have omitted some other details of the history of my actions because I don't think they are particularly relevant, but they are visible in the article's logs if anyone is interested.
JBW (
talk) 21:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
reply
- @
JBW Thanks for starting this discussion. I was not sure about the best path for seeking a notability re-assessment. I am now convinced the subject is notable and should have an article. I think the community should be given time to develop a page, building upon the current redirect. If this forces another deletion discussion, that's totally fine, but right now I don't know of any other way to give this a shot. Thanks again! ---
Another Believer (
Talk) 21:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
reply
- This is the problem with using protection on something where notability can change: the actions of enthusiastic newcomers are often indistinguishable from trolls, because neither will start a discussion or work through channels: well-meaning newbies don't know how to, trolls don't care to. I don't think deleting the history was the right thing to do for a question of notability, where it might have been if this was a copyvio, promotion, or attack issue.
Jclemens (
talk) 22:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
reply
- I agree. It looks like the article was only recreated three times, two times in quick succession by an IP editor shortly after the AfD (3 years ago), and then once recently by the editor who created an article under a different title (I'm guessing they simply weren't aware of the previous AfD - it looks like the content of the article they created doesn't really overlap with the old revisions?). I don't think that's enough to justify even semi-protection, much less full protection. (Though maybe there's more background that's not readily accessible from the revision history?)
Colin M (
talk) 23:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Two recreations shortly after an afd are typically enough to justify salting a redlink. There's no defensible reason why a closure as redirect should be treated differently, so I endorse the protection wholeheartedly. No opinion whether recreation is now justified now that it's being discussed on talk rather than being attempted by simple reversion. —
Cryptic 23:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Two recreations by an IP editor in the span of two days might justify a couple weeks of semi-protection (though, since it was a single editor, I think it would have been better to deal with them directly, by issuing a warning and then a block if they continued to edit against consensus). But indefinite full-protection is a huge overreaction.
Colin M (
talk) 01:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Since this is about a change in circumstances since the AfD, as the AfD closer, I have no opinion on this. (I am not
watching this page, so please
ping me if you want my attention.) —
JJMC89 (
T·
C) 03:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
reply
- You do get, right, that if somebody believes that the basis for notability is different today than it was three years ago, then it is not necessary for DRV to overturn the original deletion before a new article can be created? As I always point out, AFD is not a permanent ban on the subject ever being notable enough to have a standalone article — it's merely a judgement on the state of notability as of the time of the discussion, and circumstances can change to make people more notable in 2022 than they were in 2019. (Sometimes the candidate who didn't win election #1 actually does sometimes win election #2, eh?) Simply having competed on Drag Race without winning isn't enough for notability by itself, but people who didn't win Drag Race can still accrue notability for other reasons — and if a person becomes more notable in the now than they were in the back then, an article is allowed to be created again even if it was previously deleted. So DRV is an entirely unnecessary step here — I can't personally say whether Plastique Tiara has become more notable now or not, as she isn't a queen I've actively followed all that closely, but if somebody believes that Plastique Tiara has accrued sufficient notability for other reasons to override the fact that just being on Drag Race isn't enough in isolation, then they're free to write up a proposed new article in draft or sandbox. It can then be moved in place if it's good enough, and DRV doesn't need to weigh in first at all.
Bearcat (
talk) 04:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse the closure and the subsequent actions including locking of the redirect.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 07:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - I respectfully disagree with
User:Bearcat, who says that DRV is unnecessary. Some review is necessary to approve downgrading the protection of a locked fully protected redirect. A draft cannot be moved in place of the redirect until the redirect is unlocked.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 07:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Except that absolutely any administrator can move a page overtop a protected redirect...
Bearcat (
talk) 13:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Bearcat is right. DRV is not necessary. DRV is not even appropriate.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 23:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
reply
- It is true that any administrator can move a page over a protected redirect. But when should or will an administrator move a page over a protected redirect? Some AFC reviewers will not review a draft that must be moved over a locked redirect. What guidance should be given to reviewers about reviewing drafts to replace locked redirects?
Robert McClenon (
talk) 20:29, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
reply
-
WP:RFPP.
- No administrator should move the draft over protection, but they should downgrade protection on request by an AfC reviewer attesting that the reason for deletion, or pseudo deletion by redirection, has been overcome. The RFPP admin should not be asked to review sources, certainly not ten sources.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 20:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Downgrade protection of redirect to ECP or semi, so that a reviewer or other experienced editor can move a new draft into article space.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 07:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse protection. This is not obvious, so advise better process to make it easier to process:
- 1. Too many sources have been offered. Choose the best
WP:THREE for evaluation.
- 2. Formally propose reversing the redirect AfD decision at the redirect target talk page,
Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race (season 11). Not the redirect talk page. The redirect target is the broader scope page, with more editors, more watchers. The redirect is an obscure page for a formal proposal.
- 3. This is not a DRV matter until #2 has a result and page deprotection is denied at
Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 23:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Note: I was not intending to comment here again following my opening of the review, but in light of various comments above, perhaps I should clarify the purpose of asking for a review. I did not intend this to be about whether either the closure of the deletion discussion or my subsequent actions should be endorsed or not. All that is water under the bridge. My sole purpose in inviting a review was to consider whether the situation has changed enough since the deletion discussion to make it now suitable for an article to be created. Probably the commonest purpose for a deletion review is to assess whether closure of a deletion request should be endorsed or overturned, but there are other purposes too, including "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page" (quoted from
Wikipedia:Deletion review#Purpose, and that is the purpose I had in mind. Of course editors are free to discuss other issues, such as whether the deletion discussion was correctly closed, if they wish to, but I suggest that there is no useful purpose to be served by doing so, and that it would be better to stick to considering whether "significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page".
JBW (
talk) 15:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
reply
- I'm not sure why so much discussion and work is required just to give editors a chance to re-expand a page which was previously redirected. I've shared sources on the article's talk page and suggested the subject is notable, so can we just get a bit of time to work on the entry in main space, please? This doesn't need to be so complicated... ---
Another Believer (
Talk) 16:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
reply
- JBW, understood. But
Talk:Plastique Tiara#Notability lists nine sources asking others to review. The answer is
WP:THREE. If they can’t pick the three best, chances are that all nine are weak, and the request is asking too much. Two good sources are enough. Is the editor seriously thinking that maybe the first seven are not but maybe the last two are?
-
Wikipedia:Deletion review#Purpose Requires updating.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 08:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
reply
- If Exactly three are desired, use
-
Plastique Tiara, of ‘RPDR’ Season 11, to appear at Globe Bar & Kitchen for Pride
-
Plastique Tiara talks Asian representation, family pride and her accent
-
Plastique Tiara makes it werq
Those were the ones that I came up when this first came up and I think
Another Believer didn't include those since he was adding to the list. If Another Believer things another one should replace one of these I don't mind.
Naraht (
talk) 20:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
reply
- You are welcome to create a draft. That said, the last two sources are actually the same article and largely an interview without much in the way of analysis. And the first one is pretty limited. If those are the best three, I don't think we're above
WP:N's bar. I'm one of the few folks who doesn't mind interviews, but even then you really only have one decent source. keep deleted for now but one good source would probably be enough given everything else.
Hobit (
talk) 23:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
reply
- #1 is promotion of an event, giving ticket prices and the website to buy them from. Such a source can never be independent evidence of notability.
- #2 has almost
WP:100W words of secondary source description before it gets to the interview that must be discounted as independent evidence of notability.
- #3 is like #2, some preamble that contributes evidence, but it is short. It’s hard to read, being behind a paywall.
- This is a borderline call. I recommend that you make a draft and submit to AfC. Don’t use the first source at all, it’s inclusion contributes a reason (WP:NOTPROMOTION) to delete.
-
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 05:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Why on earth are editors being asked to recreate another draft?
Sources have been shared, but now we're being asked to whittle down the list? Give me a break! A couple of experienced editors simply want to work on the existing page, which is protected. This is taking so much time and effort just to allow us access to build upon what was previously redirected. Can we cut down on the bureaucracy here? ---
Another Believer (
Talk) 21:40, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Because that's the way this works: when an article has previously had enough repeated-recreation problems that protecting it was necessary in the first place, we have to be able to see what new notability claims are actually on offer before we can decide whether the basis for notability has actually changed or not, precisely because not everybody has an equally accurate understanding of what is or isn't "enough" in the first place (else there wouldn't have been repeated-recreation problems). So what's so phunking "bureaucratic" about simply creating a draft anyway? There are several administrators involved in this discussion who'd be happy to just fast-track a draft right into mainspace if it's good enough, so what makes that such an unreasonable burden?
Bearcat (
talk) 22:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
reply
- @
Bearcat So you're saying I should take the redirected markup, create a separate draft page, then expand and seek to move the draft into the main space? A bit absurd if you ask me, but I'll go that route if that's what you're saying is required. ---
Another Believer (
Talk) 22:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Not “recreate another draft”, but request draftification of the old version and use it to highlight better sources and how they will be used. This may be good for the drafter to better organise and present a few new sources.
- The new sources as present are failed by my assessment, and the topic has been previously found to not be suitable for a standalone article. The default is “no”, this is not a suitable topic, and then the onus is on the proponent to disprove the AfD result.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 20:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Remove protection. In case I've not made my position clear above, my vote is to remove protection of the redirect and allow editors to expand the article. In my opinion, the subject is clearly notable per GNG and editors should be given time to build on the redirected page, in order to preserve the article's history. I understand editors decided to redirect the article back in 2019, but also there were multiple keep votes and zero delete votes, which to me suggests notability was 'on the bubble' at the time. However, there has been more coverage since 2019, and I'd rather see another AfD discussion than not give editors a chance to expand the redirect. ---
Another Believer (
Talk) 23:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
reply
|