Misha B (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Page deleted due to lack of Notability. Tried to discuss with responsible Editor. Request restore: Misha B it is abundantly clear that Misha Bryan has moved beyond X factor with 3 highly regarded music releases since that show, her 'F64', 'Hello World Mix Tape' and her debut single 'Home Run' is getting extremely positive reviews internationally and is on the radio 1 playlist. Half the population of the UK know who Misha is, what she looks like and what she sounds like, google her name and you will find 100's music pages taking big notice of her. If you don't restore now, I believe you will desire to do so in less than a month. Zoeblackmore (talk) 18:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we follow the suggestion of the appealing editor and permit restoration if some time in the future she actually does become notable by the normal standards. Personally, I consider the existing section as excessive coverage, but here's not the place to discuss it DGG ( talk ) 19:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse AfD close - Actually, if the information about Misha B was not in List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 8), you would have better chance in getting a stand alone article on Misha Bryan (singer). With Misha B profiled in the List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 8) article, you not only need to meet WP:GNG but also need to justify a Misha Bryan (singer) stand alone article under Wikipedia:Summary style. I suggest listing List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 8) for deletion. I don't think a lot of reliable sources are writing about The eight 2011 X Factor finalists as a group, so you might be able to get that list deleted. To an admin Please consider deleting the history of Misha B and leave a link to the AfD in the edit summary. It took me a while to figure out that there was an AfD (which I updated this DRV with). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Clear AfD demonstrating consensus that she is not sufficiently notable. As the person is not sufficiently notable for thier own biography, the section at the redirect should not host a biography, it should only contain what is immediately relevant to the article it is in. Things like "her mother could not take care of her. Her father is unknown" are going into too much personal detail in describing the contestants in a TV show.

  The subject may yet become notable, but from looking at the google hits, she does not appear to meet the threshold given at WP:BIO. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, open and shut AFD, clearly the community is of the view that there is as yet insufficient notability for this person. This may of course change in the future, but we can deal with that when that arises. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
• Endorse. This could not have been closed in any other way. T. Canens (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erling O. Kruse (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

• I'm proud to call Erilng Ove Kruse my uncle! Who would be more qualified to write about him? Probably onely his sons and sisters. I wisited him a couple of months ago, and he told about Svalbard and the war. How he met with Shetlands Larsen and giving support to the smallbouts getting people out of Norway. Shame on you for this delition!! Erling will be 90 this summer! Shame for deliting my mother too! I'm very proud to call late Bjørn G. Andersen and Astrid E. Kruse Andersen my parents. I will not speak for them here because theis lifes speak for them selves! Why is more then one entry from the same family problematic? I can't understand that this is a criteria for delition. Someone don't want to have "Kruse" at Wiki. Shame on you! Why?? Knuand (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Fluke (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The rational for delection was. "Many comments below cite the WP:BLP1E policy as a reason to delete. Some comments suggest that she was already notable before the "Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?" panel, however the text in the Wikipedia article does not support that argument, nor is there sufficient evidence provided here in the comments." However, months after the event, she continues to be in national media. See, CNN: Why this election is so personal and LA Times: Months after Limbaugh's 'slut' remark, Fluke focused on election. If we are to truly judge her notablity by amount and time of media coverage, then surely this should be reviewed at this point. Casprings (talk) 01:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse result as a non-participating observer to the event, after it was brought to ANI. This wasn't an easy one for many reasons, from SPAs to the sheer volume of attention it attracted. Simply counting the votes won't lead to the same conclusion, but weighing the strength and consistency of the voting seems to support the conclusion of the closing admin. It ended up becoming a redirect to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy which makes sense, as it would appear anyone who did search for her name would be looking for the information found in that article. It took 2 1/2 months to get here at DRV, which should indicate how little controversy there is in the closing. As to the sources provided in this discussion, the CNN article was written by Sandra Fluke, so is primary in nature and the LA Times article is titled "Months after Limbaugh's 'slut' remark, Fluke focused on election", which reinforce why it was deleted and redirects there. Nothing much has changed since the closing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the point that she was published by CNN indicate that she still has notability? In other words, the fact that she is a CNN "special contributor” adds to the argument that is still in the media and notable. It has been several months since this happened. A Google news search will reveal many national outlets that still have coverage of her. Casprings (talk) 04:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What follows is three national news outlets that covered her over the past week.

1CNN: Fluke: Why this election is so personal

2 ABC News: Sandra Fluke endorses Obama

3Politico: Sandra Fluke returns favor, endorses Obama

I would argue, that this is to be judged by duration and level of coverage, then she needs a page. Here endorsement of the President is still news and at this point, that is beyond one event. Casprings (talk) 04:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted - With numerous reliable sources rushing to write about Fluke's life in response to Rush Limbaugh's comment while Fluke testified before the U.S. Congress on national television, the biography topic Sandra Fluke obviously met WP:GNG then and meets it more so now, given the significant new information that has come to light since the 9 March 2012 deletion. It took 3 1/2 months to get here at DRV, and then the DRV is brough by an WP:SPA. That indicates no established editor has had an interest in stepping forward to develop a Wikipedia:Summary style biography article on Sandra Fluke from the Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy article mentioned by the AfD closer. It would be good to get a somewhat stable Sandra Fluke biography article in main space now before the wave of SPAs come here as the United States presidential election, 2012 heats up. The controversy has died down and Fluke continues to thrust herself into the public eye via being a CNN special contributor, etc., so I wouldn't have a problem with an established editor posting a biography article on Sandra Fluke or reviewing a user space draft article for posting to article space from relatively new users or SPAs editors with a niche interest/preferred focus here at DRV. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Comments: (1) the biography topic Sandra Fluke obviously met WP:GNG then and meets it more so now: This looks to me a lot more like an argument to restore/create an article than like one to keep it deleted. (2) It took 3 1/2 months to get here at DRV, and then the DRV is brough by an WP:SPA. That indicates no established editor has had an interest in stepping forward to develop a Wikipedia:Summary style biography article on Sandra Fluke from the Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy article mentioned by the AfD closer. No it does not. It merely indicates that no established editor has brought the matter to DRV; it says nothing about the reasoning. (The particular established editor I see daily in my shaving mirror hasn't done so because he considered that he had spent more than enough energy on Fluke during the last argument.) (3) It would be good to get a somewhat stable Sandra Fluke biography article in main space now before the wave of SPAs come here as the United States presidential election, 2012 heats up. If others created it, I'd help. I'd then keep an eye on it and help protect it from any nitwits. (4) Fluke continues to thrust herself into the public eye via being a CNN special contributor, etc. This sounds like an accusation of attention-seeking (although it may not have been so intended). Let's stay polite about the subject of the article that may or may not arise from this new discussion. -- Hoary (talk) 09:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Above, I lazily assume that the characterization of Casprings as a SPA is a fair one. It is not. (See below.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Uh, no. It wasn't an accusation of attention-seeking by Fluke. The article was deleted under WP:BLP1E - Subjects notable only for one event. Thrusting herself into the public eye via being a CNN special contributor creates additional events that would attract the attention of reliable sources to write about her life, which helps overcome the WP:BLP1E reason for deletion and goes to support my position above. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Comments: I don't like being refered to as a WP:SPA. I have made edits on other things. I might not be as active or have been around long, but I don't think my arguments are non-rational. It seems a rather Ad hominem attack to dismiss me.Casprings (talk) 21:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, your edit history makes it clear that you are not an SPA. -- Hoary (talk) 23:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  No Worries Casprings (talk) 23:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  You edit history showed a 2009 purpose of editing related to Anthony Woods and a 2012 purpose of editing related to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy. They are single separated by a lot of time. However, I didn't then look to see whether there was "editing to add promotional, advocative, or non-neutral approaches, or has a personal or emotional interest in the area of focus." Editor with a niche interest/preferred focus may be more like it. I struck and edited part of my post above.-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually I did a few edits on Jinnah and poverty in India. I think I did some on a few other interests. You are right, these two articles got my interest. However, that doesn't mean I am here for a single purpose. It simply means that I am not yet as active as some. Perhaps other editors started slow and became interested. I don't know.Casprings (talk) 03:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Your uncreated, redlinked userpage is typical of a non-normal editor. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  So non-normal is now a bad thing? I am not that interested in Wikipedia to create a user page. Nor am I interested enough at this point to really edit a ton of articles. In other words, they have to get my interest. Wikipedia:Assume good faith [User:Casprings|Casprings]] (talk) 01:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• restore If the old version of the article (deleted March 9) isn't acceptable for some reason (and the AfD didn't seem it was problematic other than BLP1E), then userfy (perhaps to Hoary?) until it has no BLP violations. Sustained coverage clearly exists, no longer a BLP1E, so original deletion reason not valid. Hobit (talk) 11:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  This (sorry, admins only) is the latest version of the article. Nothing within it smells to me of "BLP violation". On the other hand it does go on a bit about Limbaugh, and the Limbaugh angle has its own, screenfuls-long article. So stuff probably should be removed from it, as well as newer stuff added. I'd be happy to let balanced people tinker with it in my userspace, and to tinker with it myself; but (i) I shan't have much time in the next couple of weeks, (ii) I'd sprotect it, (iii) I'll simply revert what I consider unwelcome edits, and not discuss them. (Hey, it's my userspace, after all.) If anticipatory sprotection (not to mention ownership) is considered a bad thing (even in userspace), or if somebody else would like to host the article during the re-incubation process, then that somebody is welcome to host it. (Incidentally, I was not one of the main authors of the article: my memory tells me that all I did was tinker with it, improve its references, and defend it in AfD -- though anyone is welcome to dig through histories and correct this memory of mine.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks Hoary, I didn't figure there was a problem, but because I couldn't see it, I thought I'd be conservative. Hobit (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to "no consensus", restore article. The discussion clearly did not achieve consensus. The community remains divided over the application of BLP1E in situations like this. While BLP1E is policy language, it is not policy which calls for a particular result, but sets forth criteria for the community to use in evaluating individual cases. So long as the arguments on each side reflect reasonable applications/interpretations of those criteria, they should not be discounted. A closer who, as here, decides to apply one view or the other of the policy is casting a supervote, whether they intend to or not. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support re-creation s suggested by Hoary. The intended purpose of BLP1E is to avoid the effect of tabloid-style hyped coverage of things of no true importance--it's a recognition of the failure of the GNG to be sufficiently discriminating in this area, where the extent of coverage can be way disproportional to the encyclopedic value. Its application to things of encyclopedic value, such as national politics, is an error. I'm not sure whether we could get an agreed wording for it that would express the intent, so we need to rely on the case-by-case judgment of the community. DGG ( talk ) 19:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment One argument that I don't understand is the statement that it took 3 1/2 months to get here. First, isn't the point that she is in the news and covered after 3 1/2 months? Second, the page instructs the user to wait for evidence. I would say national coverage after 3 1/2 months is decent evidence. That said, I think the easiest thing to do is restore the page. Some of the work on her bio is already done. Casprings (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse original but allow recreation- The original was closed within admin discretion per WP:BLP1E. But circumstances have changed in the following months, so an article is entirely reasonable now. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - A smattering of "where are they now?" and similar name-droppings is unimpressive if trying to build a case for notability. The original AfD finding was correct, and nothing has really changed since then. Tarc (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about a NYT article [1] that calls her a feminist superstar? Hobit (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not really, no. Her "fame" is just tied to the Limbaugh event, which the interview opens with. I don't generally like articles about people when the reason we talk about the at all is a single incident in time. Tarc (talk) 14:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • • Please see WP:BLP1E. This says: We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met [of which the second condition is that] that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Fluke's profile is moderately high, and certainly higher than that of swathes of people who seem to be systematically biographed for Wikipedia. BLP1E is a page written with people such as the bullied bus monitor in mind, not Fluke. ¶ I too don't like many kinds of articles, so I have some sympathy for your dislike of this kind; but please see Wikipedia:I just don't like it. -- Hoary (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am well aware of what the BLP criteria is and do not need it quoted, and "I don't like it" has zero applicability here. It it in place so the project isn't cluttered with overnight media sensations. Fluke, the JetBlue guy, the big-breasted woman fired from her job, etc...are all in the same classification. I put next to no weight on the "seeking attention" aspect as I find it rarely has any meaning. Tarc (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • • My question for Tarc is what is the objective standard for duration and amount of coverage? In other words, if this doesn't get it, what does? Casprings (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore or allow recreation per the reasoning given by Umbralcorax. It's clear by now that Fluke has received sustained coverage for several different things (the Limbaugh incident, her Congressional testimony, her Presidential endorsement, etc.), and so is not at this point a one-hit wonder. We also do make exceptions to BLP1E where that "one event" has resulted in extreme notability, and even if Fluke hadn't been the subject of ongoing curiosity, her notability just for the Limbaugh incident was far greater than most political "person of the day" types. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse original close. Bearing in mind that admin discretion is at its maximum when a BLP is involved, I can't say that the close here is clearly erroneous. No opinion on recreation, yet. T. Canens (talk) 17:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow an article on her to be created. The article needn't, and indeed shouldn't, be as concerned as the previous one was with what one person said about her. As evidence for her continuing salience, how about: "Becoming a woman of distinction" (HuffPo, 8 June, wherein SF is a "woman of distinction", and one of "six amazing women"); Fluke's "Why this election is so personal" (CNN, 14 June; suggesting that CNN thinks that her opinions are of some consequence); MSNBC's little interview with her about this (suggesting ditto); Lifenews.com's "Pro-abortion activist Sandra Fluke endorses Obama" (suggesting ditto); and "Our lady of contraception: Sandra Fluke's rocky path to feminist superstardom" (NYT, 22 June). -- Hoary (talk) 02:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I would think that you would simply have a summery of the Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy and make the rest on her. However, her bio is already done in the pervious article. If you added some on her events after the Limbaugh controversy (Endorsements, CNN Special contributions, etc) , I would think you would have a decent article. Casprings (talk) 02:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• One last comment on this one. I took a look at a google news source for the last week. Still a significant amount of coverage, including national media. If this decision is endorsed, after month of coverage, I would ask for some guidance for what notability looks like.Casprings (talk) 23:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]