450:, it is totally irrelevant whether the sources pointed out by Fram, some of which happen to be offline, were added to the article or not. We have no deadline on Knowledge (XXG). b) Personal life vs. creative life distinction is irrelevant in terms of the guidelines, as long as we have a significant coverage. It is a common fallacy to consider a piece covering their personal life in detail to be non-significant, because these are considered "trivial" matters. Someone can be notable just because their personal life is of broader public interest. c) Regarding the change of vote above: what happens to the draft after it is restored is also irrelevant for the purposes of deletion review. If it is prematurely moved to the main space, another AfD can be started. If the draft is left idle, it will be deleted in 6 months. But those are out of scope.
470:
sources brought up by Fram (maybe not) but it isn't reasonable to assume that their decision would have been different, as notability can't be determined from said sources. The suggestion to add the (yet-unidentified) sources to a hypothetical draft before mainspacing is aligned with the purpose of undeletion to draft: make the content speak for itself so that volunteer time does not need to be spent on an unnecessary and possibly confused discussion. I believed that it could be okay in this case to undelete to draft
374:. The listed additional sources aren't super helpful in writing an encyclopedia article, but the existence of the mentioned sources points to even more sources existing, which seems worth investigating, and a draft existing during that time doesn't hurt. Edit: My original comment presumed that there is someone who would work on the draft and find and add new, yet-unmentioned (but somewhat likely to exist) sources. But those expectations weren't realistic. —
213:
is just about this AFD closure, not the first AFD closure, and nobody in this discussion was arguing for this article to be Kept. I'm sure there were opinions about this article that might not have been expressed during the AFD period. But the closer's obligation is to determine the consensus of the
464:
But I was mainly commenting from the NEXIST perspective. I was not primarily stating that the sources from which notability can be determined need to edited in but that they need to be identified. The sources that have been identified up to this point are only circumstantial evidence of notability,
432:
life, not personal life? Such weak sources only point to a potential for real evidence of notability to exist, but they don't prove notability in themselves. After Fram's comment, such better sources could have found and added to the article, or mentioned in the second AfD. They weren't, and that's
408:
WP:THREE is an essay, not a guideline. WP:CREATIVE is a guideline, at least sufficient for invoking DRVPURPOSE#3, with these sources, I believe. Also, if someone is a media personality, information about their personal life may become relevant for the encyclopedia. We can't just dismiss those since
249:
Unless an article is just blatant advertising, I never have an issue with an editor writing a draft of an article deleted in an AFD, whether this article is restored to Draft space or you take a fresh start (sometimes that is preferable). What we want on
Knowledge (XXG) are well-referenced articles
234:
Thank you for responding. I have missed this discussion, I would have participated had I seen it when it was open. I was wondering if it would be possible restore the article, or to re-list the nomination? I believe the second deletion nomination statement was not done properly, since it addressed
469:
undeletion, DRV sould be able to say that "editors formed a consensus to delete, but they lacked knowledge of these important facts, and it's reasonable to asume that their decision, as reasonable AfD participants, would have been different if they hadn't". Editors maybe lacked knowledge of the
478:
sources can be found. And only when they are found to mainspace; adding them to the page was peripheral concern. But that is prone to being subverted by moving to mainspace without identifying the sources needed for notability, so I changed my mind. I am not opposed to undeleting straight to
623:. TheJoyfulTentmaker appears interested in improving the deleted version and there may or may not be additional SIGCOV. AFC (not DRV) is the place to evaluate these sources. Worst case, the draft never goes anywhere and is abandoned and G13ed, which is not a big deal at all.
514:
source that is not stuff like "he said this and another guy made these ten tweets", "he shared these photos on instragram", "genious advertiser and his ingenious divorce", and "he invented something but we don't know what; let's hope it's something useful".
165:: adding more sources to demonstrate that we have a very clear DRV#3 case here. None of the sources that follow has been considered in the deletion discussion, and all of them are contributing to notability either via the GNG or one of the SNGs such as
273:
unanimous result. The additional
Youtube source presented here by the appellant is just a five minute interview with the subject, and provides nothing in terms of notability. The AfD would have closed the same way had the appellant participated in it.
423:
We can dismiss many sources which are otherwise reliable and useful when determining notability. They aren't being dismissed as sources (we can use them in the article to support certain claims, such as about personal life). They are dismissed as
587:
No. If you respect the AfD, then it is quite ok to have it undeleted to draftspace. Do not move it back to mainspace yourself for at least, no matter how fixed you think it is, but instead submit it through AfC. Read and follow the advice at
118:
143:. The article is about a TV/magazine personality, and so many sources are naturally of that nature. But that does not change the fact that those are reliable, secondary and independent. Just to add one,
409:
we don't find them meaningful. Same as we can't dismiss the news that are basically about the movements of a soccer ball, even if some people may think those are not worthy of our time.
140:
492:
Point well taken. But if you don't have a strong objection to undeletion to draft, as you first proposed, I kindly ask an admin to close this early so I can start improving the draft.
235:
just a small subset of the sources brought up in the prior discussion, and the two delete votes did not elaborate on any of the sources that were brought up there. Thanks in advance.
535:. WP:THREE is an essay yes. This is not about wikilawyering, but fairly simple advice. Read the essay. Ask me on my talk page if there’s something in it you don’t understand.
428:
of notability. Say... personal life. Divorce news. How does that help determine that the individual is a notable creative professional? Would we not want sources about their
292:
segment is more than just an interview, but regardless, my main point was that Fram's excellent outline in the previous discussion, which includes 3 separate issues from
48:
34:
437:
pieces of real and final evidence of eligibility for inclusion ("notability" ... unfortunate term; I mean obviously the subject is somewhat famous but that isn't it). —
43:
106:
538:
It’s fairly obvious to the rest of us that you adhere to some false beliefs. If you’re not interested in advice, then maybe
Knowledge (XXG) is not for you.
300:, and non-interview articles by 2 separate Turkish columnists was not considered. The nominator only addressed the weaker ones among the sources presented.
319:
to add the new sources. The close was fine given the information considered, but now there's a reason to change direction and not spend seven days here.
573:
To get back to the actual discussion here: do you have any objection to having this article restored to draft? If not, could an admin close this early?
181:
127:
214:
editors who chose to participate in the discussion and given the comments, I don't see how you can argue for a different closure outcome.
39:
250:
on notable subjects and if a better version of this article, with better reliable sources, can be produced, then that should be allowed.
187:
175:
21:
193:
578:
497:
455:
414:
305:
240:
199:
152:
17:
190:
325:
172:
359:
343:
76:
135:
The only non-vote opinion comes from the nominator, and that does not address all the sources brought up by @
638:
601:
582:
574:
564:
550:
532:
519:
501:
493:
483:
459:
451:
441:
418:
410:
403:
387:
378:
363:
347:
330:
309:
301:
283:
261:
244:
236:
225:
203:
195:
156:
148:
466:
631:
184:
72:
65:
320:
167:
355:
339:
597:
560:
546:
516:
480:
438:
399:
394:. Go to draftspace if you find two or three sources that demonstrate Knowledge (XXG)-notability. —-
375:
178:
511:
447:
589:
434:
391:
626:
446:
I respect this perspective, however I have to say it is not P&G compliant. a) Because of
433:
why the article was deleted. And it should stay deleted until someone finally digs up two-to-
210:
278:
593:
570:
556:
542:
489:
395:
275:
144:
136:
147:
is another media coverage about him, clearly demonstrating the notability.
293:
252:
231:
216:
298:(which they selected among 179 search hits in the newspaper's archive)
465:
pointers to notability, but are not evidence of notability. For a
289:
555:
I looked at Fram’s first three sources and am unimpressed.
338:
if this is an appeal of the closure, which was correct.
113:
99:
91:
83:
171:(some sources may be critical of the subject):
8:
479:mainspace given a credible NEXIST claim. —
390:is throwing unimpressive sources. Read
7:
28:
474:NEXIST as it seems likely that
18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
639:02:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
602:10:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
583:00:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
565:21:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
551:21:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
520:01:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
502:00:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
484:19:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
460:15:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
442:08:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
419:22:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
404:22:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
379:11:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
364:03:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
348:03:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
331:12:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
310:15:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
284:09:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
262:23:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
245:06:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
226:05:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
204:03:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
157:04:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
1:
655:
353:Allow Recreation of Draft
141:prior deletion discussion
288:I believe that 5 minute
40:Deletion review archives
533:User:TheJoyfulTentmaker
388:User:TheJoyfulTentmaker
296:'s printed archive
73:Alinur Velidedeoğlu
66:Alinur Velidedeoğlu
619:delete close and
575:TheJoyfulTentmaker
494:TheJoyfulTentmaker
452:TheJoyfulTentmaker
411:TheJoyfulTentmaker
302:TheJoyfulTentmaker
237:TheJoyfulTentmaker
196:TheJoyfulTentmaker
149:TheJoyfulTentmaker
372:Undelete to draft
59:14 September 2024
49:2024 September 15
35:2024 September 13
646:
637:
634:
629:
621:restore as draft
328:
323:
317:Restore to draft
260:
224:
130:
125:
116:
102:
94:
86:
53:
33:
654:
653:
649:
648:
647:
645:
644:
643:
632:
627:
624:
476:more and better
467:WP:DRVPURPOSE#3
356:Robert McClenon
340:Robert McClenon
326:
321:
281:
251:
215:
126:
124:
121:
112:
111:
105:
98:
97:
90:
89:
82:
81:
69:
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
652:
650:
642:
641:
614:
613:
612:
611:
610:
609:
608:
607:
606:
605:
604:
539:
536:
530:
529:
528:
527:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
381:
366:
350:
333:
314:
313:
312:
279:
268:
267:
266:
265:
264:
207:
206:
133:
132:
122:
109:
103:
95:
87:
79:
68:
63:
61:
56:
47:
44:2024 September
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
651:
640:
636:
635:
630:
622:
618:
615:
603:
599:
595:
591:
586:
585:
584:
580:
576:
572:
568:
567:
566:
562:
558:
554:
553:
552:
548:
544:
540:
537:
534:
531:
521:
518:
513:
509:
505:
504:
503:
499:
495:
491:
487:
486:
485:
482:
477:
473:
468:
463:
462:
461:
457:
453:
449:
445:
444:
443:
440:
436:
431:
427:
422:
421:
420:
416:
412:
407:
406:
405:
401:
397:
393:
389:
385:
382:
380:
377:
373:
370:
367:
365:
361:
357:
354:
351:
349:
345:
341:
337:
334:
332:
329:
324:
318:
315:
311:
307:
303:
299:
295:
291:
287:
286:
285:
282:
277:
272:
269:
263:
259:
257:
256:
248:
247:
246:
242:
238:
233:
229:
228:
227:
223:
221:
220:
212:
209:
208:
205:
201:
197:
194:
191:
188:
185:
182:
179:
176:
173:
170:
169:
164:
161:
160:
159:
158:
154:
150:
146:
142:
138:
129:
120:
115:
108:
101:
93:
85:
78:
74:
71:
70:
67:
64:
60:
57:
50:
45:
41:
36:
23:
19:
625:
620:
616:
507:
506:Please find
475:
471:
429:
425:
383:
371:
368:
352:
335:
316:
297:
270:
254:
253:
218:
217:
166:
162:
134:
58:
327:Mississippi
168:WP:CREATIVE
594:SmokeyJoe
571:SmokeyJoe
557:SmokeyJoe
543:SmokeyJoe
517:Alalch E.
512:WP:SIGCOV
490:Alalch E.
481:Alalch E.
448:WP:NEXIST
439:Alalch E.
396:SmokeyJoe
376:Alalch E.
590:WP:THREE
472:prior to
435:WP:THREE
430:creative
426:evidence
392:WP:THREE
294:Milliyet
20: |
617:Endorse
510:normal
384:Endorse
369:Endorse
336:Endorse
271:Endorse
139:in the
128:restore
92:history
633:Anchor
211:WP:DRV
163:Update
628:Frank
276:Owen×
114:watch
107:links
52:: -->
16:<
598:talk
579:talk
561:talk
547:talk
498:talk
456:talk
415:talk
400:talk
360:talk
344:talk
322:Star
306:talk
241:talk
200:talk
153:talk
145:here
137:Fram
100:logs
84:edit
77:talk
32:<
508:one
386:.
290:NBC
232:Liz
119:XfD
117:) (
22:Log
600:)
592:.
581:)
563:)
549:)
541:-
500:)
458:)
417:)
402:)
362:)
346:)
308:)
258:iz
243:)
222:iz
202:)
192:,
189:,
186:,
183:,
180:,
177:,
174:,
155:)
42::
596:(
577:(
569:@
559:(
545:(
515:—
496:(
488:@
454:(
413:(
398:(
358:(
342:(
304:(
280:☎
255:L
239:(
230:@
219:L
198:(
151:(
131:)
123:|
110:|
104:|
96:|
88:|
80:|
75:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.