Jane Burgermeister – appears to have been withdrawn by nominator – Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jane Burgermeister (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Jane Burgermeister videos and articles are currently a lot (approx millions of times, e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PelTWCUmTsU viewed 227853 times, which is one out of many). She seems to have a lot of influence of public health, with her positions on H1N1 vaccination. Neutral Wiki information is required to establish the facts about her. Pc4235 (talk) 04:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure. SPA !votes appropriately discounted per policy. Notability concerns were not rebutted. I can't find error in the close at all. If nominator wants the article restored, they need to provide some reliable sources providing significant coverage of this person. We do not "establish" facts about somebody - we report the facts already established by reliable sources, and as far as I can see the consensus of the debate is that the article is unsourceable because its subject is not notable. Tim Song (talk) 06:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Restore I'm not really sure how DRV works but I find 47 news articles (4 pages worth) in Google News. Here are a few (some are foreign language but I believe this is acceptable): [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 07:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] How many of those are reliable and non-trivial? I see that a number of them only mentions this person once. Tim Song (talk) 07:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Hmm, not sure. I spose the English ones can't be used to establish notability. I wish I understood more languages. This person HAS been talked about a lot lately, not sure why I can't find more on her. I offered to help the OP improve the article so I'll look around for others. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 08:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] How about these? www.naturalnews.com/026503_pandemic_swine_flu_bioterrorism.html ^{[unreliable fringe source?]}, [9] ,[10]. Also, why was the American Chronicle (used in the Spanish Wiki version of the article) determined to be non-reliable? <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 08:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] If you read the American Chronicle article, I think you'd be able to tell why. I wonder how much editorial control there is for the new sources you cited - probably not much. And stuff like [11] with the call to action at the end does not sound reliable to me. Tim Song (talk) 08:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 08:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment: The OP appears to be a new editor so we should be patient with them while they learn the ropes. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] He/she seems to have managed quite successfully to post a deletion review request, so it seems reasonable to assume that he/she also read at least one of the three instructions that users should discuss issues with the deleting admin before listing here. Stifle (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Let's try to WP:AGF here. As you noted, it's not mandatory to discuss with the closing admin, so rather than getting bogged down in semantics, let's please just discuss the DRV on its own merits. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Yes, I am a new editor and I'm learning Wiki rules - patience is greatly appreciated... I did my homeworks: a 1.5 hour search to find a reliable source. I could not find any. I admit I had a presumption that the article was deleted prematurly, but considering that no valid references have been found, the decision to delete the article makes sense. However, I still think that a wiki article is required to establish some facts concerning Jane Burgermeister. Her videos are viral and viewed millions of time - that can be verified. I may prefer a new article concerning uniquely her viral videos, as a noticeable phenomenon, or the controversy she brings concerning H1N1 vaccination. pc4235 (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] The only problem with that is that if no reliable sources can currently be found, she still wouldn't satisfy the notability policy. She may, in time, become notable, so no reason you can't keep the article in your userspace, clean it up and once those reliable refs that are directly about her become available, recreate it. An article about her viral videos or the specific H1N1 controversy as it relates to her may be possible, but again, look around for those all-important sources. Not sure if anyone pointed you in this direction but WP:RS will help you determine what is and what is not an acceptable source. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse delete I do not really see a a discussion with the closing admin would have prevented the Del Rev.--he gave his arguments for the closing very well at the AfD, and could only have repeated them., as we are doing here: insufficient evidence of notability based on the sources available, and invalid arguments by SPAs. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure. I'm sorry I reopened a debate on deletion review concerning Jane Burgermeister article. I had a good humility lesson today, thanks...! After some more research, I consider instead writing an article on Swine Flu Conspiracy Theories [12] which seems to be an emerging tendency. Thanks! pc4235 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Jane Burgermeister – appears to have been withdrawn by nominator – Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Jane Burgermeister videos and articles are currently a lot (approx millions of times, e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PelTWCUmTsU viewed 227853 times, which is one out of many). She seems to have a lot of influence of public health, with her positions on H1N1 vaccination. Neutral Wiki information is required to establish the facts about her. Pc4235 (talk) 04:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure. SPA !votes appropriately discounted per policy. Notability concerns were not rebutted. I can't find error in the close at all. If nominator wants the article restored, they need to provide some reliable sources providing significant coverage of this person. We do not "establish" facts about somebody - we report the facts already established by reliable sources, and as far as I can see the consensus of the debate is that the article is unsourceable because its subject is not notable. Tim Song (talk) 06:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore I'm not really sure how DRV works but I find 47 news articles (4 pages worth) in Google News. Here are a few (some are foreign language but I believe this is acceptable): [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 07:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How many of those are reliable and non-trivial? I see that a number of them only mentions this person once. Tim Song (talk) 07:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm, not sure. I spose the English ones can't be used to establish notability. I wish I understood more languages. This person HAS been talked about a lot lately, not sure why I can't find more on her. I offered to help the OP improve the article so I'll look around for others. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 08:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - How about these? www.naturalnews.com/026503_pandemic_swine_flu_bioterrorism.html ^{[unreliable fringe source?]}, [9] ,[10]. Also, why was the American Chronicle (used in the Spanish Wiki version of the article) determined to be non-reliable? <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 08:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you read the American Chronicle article, I think you'd be able to tell why. I wonder how much editorial control there is for the new sources you cited - probably not much. And stuff like [11] with the call to action at the end does not sound reliable to me. Tim Song (talk) 08:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 08:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The OP appears to be a new editor so we should be patient with them while they learn the ropes. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He/she seems to have managed quite successfully to post a deletion review request, so it seems reasonable to assume that he/she also read at least one of the three instructions that users should discuss issues with the deleting admin before listing here. Stifle (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try to WP:AGF here. As you noted, it's not mandatory to discuss with the closing admin, so rather than getting bogged down in semantics, let's please just discuss the DRV on its own merits. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am a new editor and I'm learning Wiki rules - patience is greatly appreciated... I did my homeworks: a 1.5 hour search to find a reliable source. I could not find any. I admit I had a presumption that the article was deleted prematurly, but considering that no valid references have been found, the decision to delete the article makes sense. However, I still think that a wiki article is required to establish some facts concerning Jane Burgermeister. Her videos are viral and viewed millions of time - that can be verified. I may prefer a new article concerning uniquely her viral videos, as a noticeable phenomenon, or the controversy she brings concerning H1N1 vaccination. pc4235 (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The only problem with that is that if no reliable sources can currently be found, she still wouldn't satisfy the notability policy. She may, in time, become notable, so no reason you can't keep the article in your userspace, clean it up and once those reliable refs that are directly about her become available, recreate it. An article about her viral videos or the specific H1N1 controversy as it relates to her may be possible, but again, look around for those all-important sources. Not sure if anyone pointed you in this direction but WP:RS will help you determine what is and what is not an acceptable source. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse delete I do not really see a a discussion with the closing admin would have prevented the Del Rev.--he gave his arguments for the closing very well at the AfD, and could only have repeated them., as we are doing here: insufficient evidence of notability based on the sources available, and invalid arguments by SPAs. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. I'm sorry I reopened a debate on deletion review concerning Jane Burgermeister article. I had a good humility lesson today, thanks...! After some more research, I consider instead writing an article on Swine Flu Conspiracy Theories [12] which seems to be an emerging tendency. Thanks! pc4235 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

11 November 2009