User talk:Marino13/Ariana Greenblatt

Redirect over article
Don't redirect! If you're not content with the article improve it instead! And the "depreciated" link is, firstly, a personal opinion of the person who says so, and, secondly, a "depreciated" link is no reason for a redirect. Remove the link you deem "depreciated" and the problem has been solved. --Maxl (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's not how it works, at all. Articles, especially on WP:BLPs, have to meet notability guidelines like WP:BASIC – otherwise, an article cannot exist. You should follow the suggestion of the hidden note, and try to make a draft article at Draft:Ariana Greenblatt, and demonstrate there that this article subject meets notability guidelines. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, that's your personal opinion. There is, however, more than one way to achieve a goal. For example, the article can be tagged as requiring improvement. That's how it is normally done. If you just change it into a redirect it will be overlooked and the article will never come back as an article in its own respect. Anyway, there are ongoing claims about this article not meeting certain guidelines but no reason is given why this is alleged to be the case. I've been a Wikipedian for a long time and I've seen people fight certain articles with all kinds of odd arguments for the simple reason that they didn't like the lemma. And I've seen people claiming that articles "do not meet" the notability guidelines for the simple reason that they didn't know anything about the topic. --Maxl (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it's actually policy. You've been told what you need to do – if you ignore this, either the page will be protected, or you will be blocked for WP:DE, or both. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * While you say this is policy the question is still open why it might apply here. Just to say it's "policy" is insufficient. Whatever policy there is, it does not always apply or can be falsely applied. Neither you nor anyone else has stated why this "policy" should apply to this article. Anyway, as you might have seen, I have not again restored the article even though I might have been in my full rights to do so since neither you nor the user who restored the redirect, explained WHY the article, in their opinion, does not meet a certain "policy". And you did not answer to my arguments, you chose to threaten me instead. That's not the spirit of a true Wikipedian, I'm sorry to say. --Maxl (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Article tags are useless. The majority of the time they are simply reminders for yourself. Amaury • 22:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Another personal opinion.... --Maxl (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And, to be clear, this doesn't cut it – one WP:RS "passing mention", three almost certain WP:NOTRS (see: WP:DAILYMAIL), and two WP:Primary sources that do not contribute to notability – the only source that actually contributes to WP:BASIC there is the ABC 11 source, and that one looks like it's not "in depth" enough coverage either. So, no – you have absolutely not demonstrated that this subject is notable enough for an article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

BTW, we're done here. You've been told what to do: if you think we are wrong, create a Draft article, submit it through WP:AfC, and see if they accept it into Mainspace. I'll bet hard money that the version I linked to above would not be accepted. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I notice that you complained about me allegedly editing texts of others which I did not do. Instead, you deleted my last post, apparently because I disagreed with you. Yes - I think a further discussion with you does not help since you don't seem to be ready to accept different opinions. --Maxl (talk) 23:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

At this point there is an abandoned draft that was deleted but can be WP:REFUNDed that can be worked on and when ready submitted for evaluation as an article. Alternatively the deleted redirect can be treated like a deleted WP:PROD, the article restored, then immediately WP:AfD it for wider discussion. In my evaluation (my AfD vote) the article as it stands does not meet WP:NACTOR and WP:BASIC so will likely be deleted in AfD. Best is to bring the draft article to notability standards and leave the redirect in the meantime. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2020 (UTC)