| Revision as of 12:04, 2 July 2024 editJakeH1108 (talk | contribs)16 edits →Duncan Harrison: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:17, 2 July 2024 edit undoThryduulf (talk | contribs)Oversighters, Administrators99,034 edits nominate British Rail DHP1Next edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE copying the format: {{subst:drv2|page=<PAGE NAME>|xfd_page=<XFD PAGE NAME>|reason=<REASON>}} ~~~~ --> | Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE copying the format: {{subst:drv2|page=<PAGE NAME>|xfd_page=<XFD PAGE NAME>|reason=<REASON>}} ~~~~ --> | ||
| ====]==== | |||
| :{{DRV links|British Rail DHP1|xfd_page=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/British Rail DHP1|article=}} | |||
| There was not a consensus for deletion in this discussion. The initial comments were all either "there are no sources" or "there is no proof this exists", which I fully refuted by finding multiple reliable sources that demonstrate existence. After I presented those sources there were only three comments left, one of which clearly had not read anything other than the nomination statement. One comment from the nominator favoured merging or deleting on the grounds that few people had engaged with the discussion, and one !vote recommending a straight keep (indicating the existence of additional sources I did not present, and which nobody engaged with). The closing summary clearly does not accurately represent the discussion - nobody mentioned the sources were scattered, and 50% of the people engaging with them wanting the article kept and 50% open to a merge is not evidence that I'm "almost alone" in thinking it warrants keeping or merging. Outcomes of merging, no consensus, keeping or relisting for more input would have been reasonable readings of the discussion but straight deletion was not. | |||
| In ] Sandstein started by claiming that sources conclusively demonstrating existence do not invalidate !votes based on sources not existing and no proof of existence and since then has not responded at all in about 4 days despite engaging elsewhere on their talk page. Black Kite's comments at Sandstein's talk are ones that might have been useful discussion points in the AfD but were not made there (and are not entirely correct anyway). ] also states that it might have been closed as delete because they !voted keep, I don't have an opinion about whether that is true or not but ''iff'' it is then it's significantly problematic even ignoring everything else. ] (]) 12:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ====]==== | ====]==== | ||
| :{{DRV links|Duncan Harrison|xfd_page=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Duncan Harrison|article=}} | :{{DRV links|Duncan Harrison|xfd_page=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Duncan Harrison|article=}} | ||
Revision as of 12:17, 2 July 2024
< 2024 July 1 Deletion review archives: 2024 July 2024 July 3 >2 July 2024
British Rail DHP1
There was not a consensus for deletion in this discussion. The initial comments were all either "there are no sources" or "there is no proof this exists", which I fully refuted by finding multiple reliable sources that demonstrate existence. After I presented those sources there were only three comments left, one of which clearly had not read anything other than the nomination statement. One comment from the nominator favoured merging or deleting on the grounds that few people had engaged with the discussion, and one !vote recommending a straight keep (indicating the existence of additional sources I did not present, and which nobody engaged with). The closing summary clearly does not accurately represent the discussion - nobody mentioned the sources were scattered, and 50% of the people engaging with them wanting the article kept and 50% open to a merge is not evidence that I'm "almost alone" in thinking it warrants keeping or merging. Outcomes of merging, no consensus, keeping or relisting for more input would have been reasonable readings of the discussion but straight deletion was not. In the discussion with the closer Sandstein started by claiming that sources conclusively demonstrating existence do not invalidate !votes based on sources not existing and no proof of existence and since then has not responded at all in about 4 days despite engaging elsewhere on their talk page. Black Kite's comments at Sandstein's talk are ones that might have been useful discussion points in the AfD but were not made there (and are not entirely correct anyway). Andy Dingley also states that it might have been closed as delete because they !voted keep, I don't have an opinion about whether that is true or not but iff it is then it's significantly problematic even ignoring everything else. Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Duncan Harrison
The individual has achieved notoriety as the Head of Content for Crack (magazine) and further as the lead for their creative production offshoot 'CC Co' . Further to this, winning a BBC television program that features on prime-time television is arguably notoriety enough. Finally, the language used within the original deletion reads as possibly being personally motivated. JakeH1108 (talk) 08:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Our inclusion criteria care not a whit about a person's supposed "notoriety", but rather about the extent of their coverage in reliable, independent sources. The passing mention in the link you give is quite insufficient. You don't need DRV's approval to write a new article about this person - particularly for a deletion discussion this old - but if it relies on sources like that one, it'll just get deleted again. —Cryptic 10:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Whilst there is more coverage of the individual, and their role within this creative company found in this article. I thought it pertinent in addressing the historic claim of individual doing nothing else of note. It is arguable that the individuals contributions to the music journalism and creative content industries is of note. Furthermore, merit is deserved for the original coverage of success within the The Speaker (TV series). It makes more sense to decide whether the article in question is notable enough to recover rather than making another which would be subsequently deleted. JakeH1108 (talk) 12:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)