- Chris Scott (actor) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Page was deleted as per WP:A7. Admin User:Toddst1 tagged it for speedy deletion, but I removed the template on the grounds that the article did assert the subject's importance, and I brought the matter up on the admin's talk page. Instead of trying to reach an agreement, however, the admin went ahead and deleted the article without consensus. Attempts at negotiation have been fruitless (see the talk page link above). Guoguo12--Talk-- 00:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could we see the article under consideration, please? It strikes me that A7's not a difficult criterion to comply with and the deleting admin's talk page responses don't appear to demonstrate approachability or a willingness to discuss.—S Marshall T/C 00:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have temporarily restored the history of the article so that the discussion can be facilitated for the non-admins also. Even though its a BLP, it is not at all negative or controversial DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore and send to afdIt is almost always not a good idea to speedy delete an article after the tag was removed by an established editor, such as Guoguo12 certainly is. Speedy is for articles that can not be reasonably disputed; if an established editor disputes it, the assumption is that it was reasonable, and AfD is the place to decide. Unfortunately, it will almost certainly be deleted there unless additional information is added and sourced. todd is right that it is wholly inadequate, but if challenged in a case like this I let the community decide. DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted Todd evidently applied WP:IAR here - there isn't a cat's chance in hell of this article surviving AfD. Jon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.136.174 (talk) 02:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- At least there's a chance. In my opinion, the admin was not justified in going ahead with the delete without further discussion. Should the article be restored, at least we (whoever "we" are, since it's probably just me) might have a few days to gather reliable sources for verification. Is it okay if I copy the deleted material onto a temporary construction page in my userspace, or is that not allowed? Guoguo12--Talk-- 03:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey guys, I understand that the content wasn't complete, however it didn't seem to stand a chance of further edit as it was deleted mere hours after it went up. I AM the actor concerned and hoped to complete the page now... I do understand I should have completed it in my sandbox first, however I am new to this. Well I guess I shall wait for someone else to create an (incorrect) page of me. For those interested you can see some of my credits at IMDb. Bluefreesia (talk) 03:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Bluefressia please read WP:COI. With regard to the article I am not seeing any claim to notability there and its an unsourced BLP. Guoguo12. exactly how did this assert notability? I can't see how this is an unreasonable decision and we certainly do not need to spend 7 days on process on a page that self evidently does not meet our inclusion criteria. If there are sources the page can be immediately recreated with sources. There are sources are there not? Spartaz Humbug! 03:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, my point is that, according to WP:A7, "the criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." The deletion was done as if the article had already been through AfD. Wikipedia is a work in progress, right? Had the article not been deleted by the admnin and simply tagged for AfD deletion, I could have at least tried to fix any problems. However, the COI is a major problem, a problem that probably certifies a rewrite. Guoguo12--Talk-- 13:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I suggest the appellant simply pick up the article, fix it such that it has a claim of notability such that A7 clearly does not apply, and continue editing it. DRV is not needed to recreate a version of an article which no longer meets the reason for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 04:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, what chance does it stand of further edit and inclusion of sources if it is deleted hours after it is put up? Perhaps it should be made explicit to new users that it is not acceptable to post information with a view to providing sources a few hours later - or else all information will be deleted in haste. I wish I had completed the article in its entirety before leaving the house to run errands. Exactly how did the article prove to be a COI? It provided information that is similar to all other actors bios (ie Personal Life background, Acting Career) and would have contained more had it been allowed to stand. Further information on Chris Scott can be found at www.chris-scott.info Bluefreesia (talk) 04:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoever claimed that the article was the result of a COI was right; most of the article was WP:OR. However, it still should not have been deleted via speedy deletion. It should have been tagged with {{or1}}, or at most sent to AfD. Speedy deletion should be used with caution for articles recently created. Guoguo12--Talk-- 14:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Action taken: I have userfied this article per Guoguo12's request so that the article can be either gotten into shape or left deleted. The article can be found at User:Guoguo12/Chris Scott (actor). I apologize for my lack of process knowledge here, but I'll leave it to someone who knows DRV closing procedures better than I to tidy this up. Toddst1 (talk) 06:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for giving me a chance to tidy things up. I have edited and taken a minimalist approach and only included info found on the website as noted in my post above. Not sure if this is the place to notify you I have done this. If this edit is still deemed inappropriate for inclusion here then so be it. It is heartening to know that Wikipedia is tightly controlled. As it should be. Bluefreesia (talk) 07:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What you need now is a reliable source that is independent of the subject and covers the topic in reasonable depth.—S Marshall T/C 09:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion From CSD to DRV in 1 step? Nobody looked at WP:REFUND? Nothing at all notable about the individual was asserted, and ref's show they do not meet WP:ACTOR. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article in question was controversially deleted, so I came here. Anyway, like I said above, speedy deletion is not for articles that don't meet notability inclusion criteria like WP:NACTOR (assuming that's what you meant); that's what AfD and Prod are for. If you read WP:A7, you'll find that significance/importance is a lower standard than notability. Being an actor in more than one significant movie (like The Matrix) is notability enough, in my opinion, to meet the guidelines at WP:NACTOR; however, that's something that should be discussed at AfD. Thanks. Guoguo12--Talk-- 13:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Being an actor in" and "having a significant role in" are 2 different things. Cops were not important in the Matrix - and almost every movie has a few of them. Kinda like the expendable crew member on any given Star Trek episode. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- However, this is a notability issue, which is different from significance, and should be dealt with in an AfD discussion or tagged with {{Notable}}. Guoguo12--Talk-- 22:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted but I'll stop short of endorsing. I just had a look at the version that was deleted and I can't fault the deleting admin much. Aside from a blurb at the end about the minor matrix role, the article looks like one of the typical "Joe Shmoe" vanity articles we get firehosed with and regularly delete under CSD A7. This is also one of the reasons we discourage autobiographies. Someone writing about themselves will understandably write about what they know about themselves whether or not there are sources while a third party will be more likely to build the article from already available sources. Also, an informal indication that a subject might be notable is if a third party who doesn't know the subject personally elects to write an article.
At this point I would suggest allowing the current userspace draft to develope and if/when it's moved to article space, we can discuss it at AFD if there is still doubt about the subject's notability. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- At this point, this actually sounds fair because the userspace draft I am working on (here) is just about completely different from the originally deleted article. Guoguo12--Talk-- 22:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|