Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 September 24

24 September 2016

 * Are you able to look at the Google cache and see writing that is not "objective and unbiased style, free of puffery"? I think that much is objective.  For me there is also a subjective component, perhaps harder to quantify, with which reading the paragraph that starts "Merlini has performed several..." gives me physical discomfort due to lack of objectivity.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The writing can be improved. For example, one sentence I would delete is "David Merlini's live TV shows broke all current ratings records in 2004 and 2005" because it is unsourced. Once that sentence is removed, when I read the article in the Google cache, I do see writing that is of an "objective and unbiased style, free of puffery". I consider such defects very minor and easy to address. Editing policy and Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The article said, "Merlini has performed several high-tech stunts such as being launched in a rocket, embedded in a block of solid concrete then lowered into the Danube, or frozen with liquid nitrogen." I do not see anything promotional about "Merlini has performed several". Merlini's stunts are performances so "perform" is an acceptable verb to use. How would you rephrase that sentence? Cunard (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have anything to add to my previous comments. I suggest you consider that an incubated article is within the scope of WP:Editing policy, not WP:Deletion policy.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Cunard's position is quite arguable, and it's plausible that the reason so little attention was paid to the sources he presents is because participation at AfD these days is so low. Would a fresh listing attract some more substantive comments?  It's worth a shot, although I fear that Sandstein might be right and it could well go by without anyone bothering at all.  I'm afraid the root problemlack of editorsis getting worse and we'll see more and more of these, with flaky decisions coming out of almost unattended discussions.— S Marshall  T/C 10:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's worth a shot, although I fear that Sandstein might be right and it could well go by without anyone bothering at all. – that could happen (but likely will not because of the increased attention from this DRV). I differ from Sandstein in that if no one bothers to comment, "no consensus" rather than "delete" should be the correct close. Cunard (talk) 19:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Endorse deletion -- I followed the AfD although I did not !vote as the area of entertainers is not of strong interest to me. I reviewed the additional sources, but they looked like "human interest" stories and adding them would result in an article on a subject of passing significance. I'd day that it was a case of WP:TOOSOON. If the discussion is reopened, I would probably !vote delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * DRV analyzes the consensus in the discussion. Two editors, DGG and I, commented about the sources and differed on whether the sources established notability. Do you believe that is consensus for deletion? Cunard (talk) 19:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There was also an !Vote from editor Muffled Packeted: "Equally, he has no significantly-sized fanbase, won no major accolades, and the only contribution he has made- holding his breath- is neither "'unique, prolific or innovative."" K.e.coffman (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * relist or overturn to NC There may be been a TNT issue here, but in the face of actual sources, there is no consensus to ignore them. Hobit (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , regarding the TNT issue, here is the Google cache of the article. I don't think that is TNT. What about you? Cunard (talk) 19:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not great prose, but it's not a TNT case either IMO. Hobit (talk) 20:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree, it is not WP:TNT, but is requiring of conversions to article form. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Overturn to "no consensus" or relist. Resolved promotionalism isn't a reason for deletion, cf. DEL4, and notability is not judged based on the content of the article, see ARTN, thus, the nominator's vote should have been disregarded as illogical and "flatly contradict[ing] established policy . . . ." . Similarly, John Pack Lampert's boilerplate "non-notable [adjective "] vote "show[s] no understanding of the matter of issue." That leaves three reasoned votes: Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and DGG voting for deletion and Cunard supporting retention, and a 2–1 split is no consensus. No shade to the closer. Rebb  ing  21:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:DEL4 reads, "Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)". I can't say that I know how to apply WP:DEL4 in AfD, so perhaps you meant WP:DEL14?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * : No, I meant DEL4. The nominator argued for deletion on account of promotionalism (including that which he had removed), but that's not a reason for deletion; the closest deletion rationale concerning advertising, DEL4, applies only to extant (not removed!) content, and only when the article has no "relevant or encyclopedic content." Rebb  ing  03:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Leaning overturn. The diligent advocate provided compelling evidence, compelling at least enough for a source by source analysis.  Hesitating due to "Extremely promotional" & "See talk page also for previous discussions".  Would someone please temp undelete these.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is the Google cache of the article. Regarding temporary undeletion, I have asked at Requests for undeletion here for the page to be moved to Draft:David Merlini so I can clean up the article per my comment to Unscintillating here. I would prefer that the move to draftspace be done over temporary undeletion, which would prevent me from improving the article to address Unscintillating's concerns. Cunard (talk) 07:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you Cryptic for temp undeleting both. I see a very clear picture of newcomers or driveby editors throwing together draft material on what looks to be a notable person.  Bonadea made an attempt to clean up what looks like a detailed promotional pamphlet.  It would be very good if Cunard is allowed to clean it up.  Definitely undelete, authors in the history deserve attribution.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your analysis, . After Bonadea's cleanup, do you consider the most recent revision to still be "a detailed promotional pamphlet"? If you do, please let me know what can be improved in the article, which will help me with my cleanup. I see that Cryptic has fully protected the page, which prevents me from moving it to draftspace. Would an admin move the pages to Draft:David Merlini and Draft talk:David Merlini? Cunard (talk) 07:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You should wait for this DRV to be formally closed.
 * The page was a "a detailed promotional pamphlet" in that it was a list of accomplishments. It was not irretreivable, but actually looks like a draft list of points to write around.  Prosification, featuring independent commentary evident in your quotes on the AfD page will fix it.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I strongly suspect that "detailed promotional pamphlet" isn't just a comment on the article's formatting and lack of NPOV, but a literal description. It's difficult to prove for something created back in 2007 (and then recreated after a prod in February 2008), but at least some of the text from the first version of the article is used verbatim in the subject's own current marketing material (as seen, for example, here).  That particular text isn't present in the 2008 recreation, but other text from the original version is.  It's probably better to work directly from the sources. —Cryptic 08:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment here: "I didn't see your request to draftify it rather than temporary undeleting until after I'd done the latter. If you want to cut-and-paste it to draftspace and work on it there, I'll do the legwork to merge the histories after the drv closes and it's restored, as it looks like it's headed toward; or you can just paste your draft back over it, if you prefer." I have followed your suggestion and created the draft at Draft:David Merlini. Cunard (talk) 07:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * and, I have rewritten the article at Draft:David Merlini. Cunard (talk) 07:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've made some edits to the version in draft space. The draft space version shows what can be done with either an overturn with option to incubate or an overturn to incubate.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for improving the article, . Now that the article has been rewritten, would you support restoration? ("Overturn to incubate" doesn't seem necessary anymore since the article has now been improved in draftspace.) Cunard (talk) 03:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "Merlini was buried in a concrete chunk thrown into the Danube." is an example of the depth of problem in this article. It has been so easy to fall into WP:IN-UNIVERSE writing here that we are still using Wikipedia's voice to state magic as reality. And being lowered by a crane is not "thrown".  Unscintillating (talk) 10:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Cunard, the article is currently deleted. An overturn to incubate would allow the work on the article in draftspace to proceed, which is, I believe, what you want.  Unscintillating (talk) 10:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for fixing the in-universe concerns here. I have rewritten the article in draftspace—and you have copyedited the article—so I would prefer an "overturn to restore to mainspace" rather than an "overturn to incubate". Cunard (talk) 05:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Endorse - If additional analysis was needed, I would have, because I had analyzed it, this was still a Delete in that there was enough suggesting Delete, and the sources were found to also not be satisfying. SwisterTwister   talk  18:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Overturn to using Unscintillating's draft (and possibly history merge). The draft looks to be suitably referenced and has the right tone. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Endorse deletion - I am not satisfied with the quality of sources. A low circulation newspaper and a yellow journalism magazine should not be used as sources for demonstrating notability. A lot of the references in reliable sources are passing or brief mentions (so brief that they can literally be quoted here). These do not add up to notability. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }