- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. As noted by editors here and according to the actual policy on speedy deletions, speedy deletions are not in fact mandatory, they are can-delete not must-delete (arguably with the exception of G10 and G12). There are also some questions about notability but it seems like the GNG-based arguments to keep have not been refuted. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Yuhua Hamasaki
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Yuhua Hamasaki ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Qualified for deletion under G5, as being created by the blocked user user:Ratherbe2000. Was, in my opinion, incorrectly removed by another editor ignoring WP policy regarding sock article creation. This should be procedurely deleted so as to not encourage sock creation of articles. Onel5969 TT me 02:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Unnecessary deletion nomination. ---
Another Believer (
Talk)
02:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Also, I'm finding more sources needing to be added to the article. See here, here, for example. I've also posted more sources at Talk:Yuhua Hamasaki. Easy keep. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 23:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per above. TheEditster ( talk) 11:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 11:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. This nomination is rather pointed and misses the point of G5. Nihlus 15:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. G5 states, in part, "This applies to pages by banned or blocked users in violation of their block or ban, and that have no substantial edits by others." There have been quite a number of edits by others since its creation improving this article. -- Kbabej ( talk) 15:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - it actually hits the point of G5 straight on - creation of articles by blocked editors. And the key word in Kbabej's example, is "substantial" - of which there were none as of the point of this nomination, merely formatting and re-positioning additions. And I would put forward that not a single one of the keep !votes addresses the point of the nomination.
Onel5969
TT me
16:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
-
Onel5969, it's a question of whether or not deleting this page helps or hurts the encyclopedia. It clearly hurts it more to delete information simply because some of it was started by a blocked user.
Nihlus
16:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
-
Nihlus - That's where we'll have to agree to disagree, I think it hurts the encyclopedia much more to encourage editing by sockpuppets. That type of editing should be deleted simply to discourage such vandalism. And that's what these types of edits are: vandalism, which is not a guideline, but a policy. As is
WP:SOCK. Policies are stronger than guidelines. And that's regardless of whether the vandalism occurs in such borderline notable (or some might argue non-notable) articles like this, or on a featured article like
Boston. It would be interesting to understand how editors defend vandalism.
Onel5969
TT me
16:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
-
Onel5969, it's not black and white. There's a difference between good faith editing while socking and straight vandalism. Each situation should be looked at on its own merits instead of trying to apply a general rule to it that actually hurts the encyclopedia.
Nihlus
16:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Nihlus - I agree. And when I come across a sock I'll go back through their edits and see what is and isn't disruptive. In the case of this sock, there were quite a few edits which were innocuous, or even helpful, and so I left them. However, there were others where they added content either without citations, or with non-reliable citations. In those cases I reverted the edits. In two instances, they created articles out of redirects, articles about folks of dubious notability, which has caused numerous editors to now waste their time discussing this. That, in and of itself is harming the encyclopedia, when these efforts could be put forth to better, productive, pursuits. In the essay, WP:SOCKHELP, it clearly agrees with you that each case needs to be evaluated individually, which I have done. However, it also goes on to state in WP:SOCKHELP#Deleting articles or article edits that the article should be G5'd. Which I did. It then goes on to say, "Again, the goal isn't to punish the sock puppet, it is to take away the reward for violating policy." Letting the article remain is clearly rewarding the vandalism. Onel5969 TT me 16:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
-
Onel5969, it's not black and white. There's a difference between good faith editing while socking and straight vandalism. Each situation should be looked at on its own merits instead of trying to apply a general rule to it that actually hurts the encyclopedia.
Nihlus
16:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
-
Nihlus - That's where we'll have to agree to disagree, I think it hurts the encyclopedia much more to encourage editing by sockpuppets. That type of editing should be deleted simply to discourage such vandalism. And that's what these types of edits are: vandalism, which is not a guideline, but a policy. As is
WP:SOCK. Policies are stronger than guidelines. And that's regardless of whether the vandalism occurs in such borderline notable (or some might argue non-notable) articles like this, or on a featured article like
Boston. It would be interesting to understand how editors defend vandalism.
Onel5969
TT me
16:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
-
Onel5969, it's a question of whether or not deleting this page helps or hurts the encyclopedia. It clearly hurts it more to delete information simply because some of it was started by a blocked user.
Nihlus
16:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails on the criteria in
WP:NACTOR, which stresses significant roles in multiple major works. The strongest claim is the appearance on the reality TV show, but that's not strong enough. The subject was only one of 14 contestants in one season of one reality TV show, and even then appears to have been eliminated early. -
GretLomborg (
talk)
19:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- If you don’t want to keep it, it should at least be a redirect for
RuPaul's Drag Race (season 10), as is done for other contestants who don’t have their own article yet.
Umimmak (
talk)
20:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- I agree. I sometimes wonder why editors vote to delete a page and its history entirely when 1) the redirect serves a purpose and 2) the subject may become notable at a later date, so saving the history is potentially helpful. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 20:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- If you don’t want to keep it, it should at least be a redirect for
RuPaul's Drag Race (season 10), as is done for other contestants who don’t have their own article yet.
Umimmak (
talk)
20:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete appearing in one reality show does not make one notable.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
05:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- No one here is saying that's why the article should be kept. Care to comment at all on secondary coverage? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - Clearly passes general notability guidelines. This should be procedurely deleted so as to not encourage sock creation of articles... is not a valid deletion criteria, and this doesn't even meet the premise of G5. Dusti *Let's talk!* 07:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Weak keep I generally think we have too many articles on minor contestants of a single tv show, but the article shows broad coverage. Ignoring all the youtube/twitter/etc. links, there are fine enough sources noting coverage. It's not stellar but it's there. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 10:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 16:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 16:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep: Article is easily verifiable and definitely satisfy WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:ACTOR, WP:NMUSIC, WP:SINGER-- PATH SLOPU 16:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep: This contestant has a decade long career and a reach that extends beyond the television programme. Including appearances on "Big Ang" CW's "The Carrie Diaries" CBS" and "Blue Bloods". As well as a popular webseries, and features in major magazines (Vogue, New York Times, Time Out). As well as being central figure to this year's Life Ball. https://lifeplus.org/en/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Applepearbutter12 ( talk • contribs) 02:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.