JLS (X Factor Group) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

JLS is a boyband that finished 2nd in the music competiton, The X Factor (UK). After a discussion, comprimising of three editors, their page was redirected to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 5). A week later, Eoghan Quigg, who finished third in the same competition (lower than JLS), had his page considered for deletion. The result was keep.

has won an Urban Music Award, is notable under Criterion 9 of WP:MUSICBIO and are about to be signed to record deal with Simon Cowell [1]. They are also the only X Factor 2nd-place finalists not to have their own page. I ask that the redirect is removed. Pyrrhus16 ( talk) 21:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC) reply

UNREMOVE REDIRECT Can i add other second placed finalists were signed and as it was announced they had been signed, there articles were created not releasing a single yet so why should JLS be treated any differently? I say its because Eoghan fans want to have something to look at to see whats going on with his career, and JLS fans will want to see the same. I say unremove this redirect. I'm also going to add that two members of the band were famous before being on the show (TV) Marvin was in a band that created one album and 4 singles and was a regular actor on Holby City. And Ortise was on fun song factory as a regular. 86.168.5.166 ( talk) 22:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn redirect because JLS are just as notable as Eoghan Quigg. Note, page needs to be re-created at JLS (Jack the Lad Swing) and not JLS (X Factor Group). JS ( chat) 23:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Close as the article has not been deleted. The article was merely turned into a redirect, and DRV is not for content disputes. — The Hand That Feeds You: ^Bite 00:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Speedy close, no deletion to review. Anyone can take the normal editorial action of unredirecting the page. Stifle ( talk) 09:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply

  Comment, I was told here [2] it had to go to DRV due to it being redirected per AFD discussion. Pyrrhus16 ( talk) 09:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply

  Comment The page may be a redirect, but this was done as a result of the AfD. Anyone undoing the revert will be going against the concensus reached at the AfD, just as they would if they recreated the page following deletion. If not here, where is one supposed to force a review of an AfD? Ros0709 ( talk) 12:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply

  The closure was a bold/speedy redirect by a non-admin on the same day as the article was listed at AFD, therefore it carries no more or less weight than any other redirecting. Stifle ( talk) 14:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply

  In that case, re-nomination may be the best option. Ros0709 ( talk) 19:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment The redirection of this article is protected so that only admins may edit or move the page, hence the request here. This was done due to the consensus of the AFD which mandated redirection, was ignored by the requestor and the article restored. The AFD was quite recent, so any interest in overturning the redirect does require consensus through DRV process, unless the admin who closed the AFD discussion reverts their close. Having said that, the arguments for unprotecting and unredirecting this article are all weithin the purview of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and have no merit, with respect to overruling a properly determined consensus rom AFD. I recommend that the interested editors create a userspace draft and request a review if and when they feel it is ready for scrutiny to determine if it is proper to move to mainspace. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 12:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply

  I'm with you up to the "properly determined consensus". A non-admin boldly redirecting after 14 hours of an AFD isn't one of those. Stifle ( talk) 14:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn redirect As I see it, bottom line here is that Eoghan Quigg's article was kept solely on the grounds of him having placed in a music competition, nothing to do with releases or percieved level of fame. When this is taken into consideration, the fact that JLS placed higher in the competition than Quigg, should be enough on its own to have the article reinstated. Sky83 ( talk) 13:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Please read WP:WAX. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 16:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I get where you're coming from but that's not exactly the point I was making, I was drawing attention to the reasons Quigg's article was kept, and those reasons are valid reasons for the reinstatement of this one. I apologise if you thought I was simply saying that because Quigg has an article, JLS should, perhaps I should've extended my comment, it was kinda a hit and run thing as I was on my way out the door at the time! Moreover, I was just saying that because JLS placed in a music competition, this makes an article on them valid and that if this point wasn't accepted for JLS, it probably shouldn't have been accepted for Quigg. That was where my comparison came in. Sky83 ( talk) 16:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Just pointing out that WP:WAX does not say never compare with other AFDs it actually says "If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates." It does also say use this with caution. Davewild ( talk) 18:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply

User talk:Smee ( | user | history | links | watch | logs) ( restore | cache | MfD)) User talk:Smeelgova ( | user | history | links | watch | logs) ( restore | cache | MfD))

On November 3, 2007, Durova deleted User talk:Smee and User talk:Smeelgova [3] [4], shortly before resigning her administrative privileges. On September 22, 2007, Cirt commenced editing [5], without disclosing that Smee and Smeelgova were his prior accounts -- see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology/Workshop#Motion_to_openly_discuss_Cirt.27s_past_identity. Recently, Durova introduced evidence in a current arbitration case regarding Cirt's interactions with Jossi, dating back to 2006, when Cirt was editing as Smeelgova. Thus, in addition to the generally objectionable nature of removing significant portions of the talk page history of a user actively editing Wikipedia, these particular talk page deletions hinder the formulation of a response to Durova's own evidence. John254 19:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment it's odd that John254 highlights the red herring of my subsequent resignation while failing to mention the security concern I submitted as evidence to the ongoing arbitration case. Suggest closing this procedurally; the arbitrators and Jimbo Wales have appropriate information in their hands. Durova ^Charge! 20:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC) reply

In Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology/Workshop#Motion_to_openly_discuss_Cirt.27s_past_identity, Cirt stated that "The security matter has been resolved. My previous account was Smee, renamed from Smeelgova. Discuss them if you like." [6], rendering the "security concern" to which Durova refers moot. The question here is not whether the deletions were correct at the time they were effectuated, but rather whether the talk pages should remain deleted. John254 20:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Furthermore, I mentioned Durova's resignation only for the limited purpose of explaining why I did not request that she reverse her own deletions before raising the matter here. John254 20:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Somehow John has been confused by the wrong thread. The relevant thread is Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology/Workshop#Motion_to_undelete_Cirt.27s_past_accounts.27_talk_pages, submitted by Jossi (who announced his retirement after my evidence) and already commented upon by three arbitrators, none of whom saw merit to the proposal. Durova ^Charge! 20:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC) reply

These user talk pages were not deleted by order of the Arbitration Committee. The community may want to restore them, even in the absence of the Committee directing such action. John254 20:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC) reply

So essentially you are attempting to do an end run around the ArbCom regarding the most sensitive part of an ongoing arbitration case, and using an out of context quote from an editor as your pretext for this very cavalier treatment of his privacy. Considering the aggressive and unprovoked statements you have been making about him in relation to this case, this approaches WP:POINT. Please withdraw the nomination; I wouldn't want a formal complaint to result. Durova ^Charge! 20:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC) reply

If these talk pages needed to remain deleted due to privacy concerns, you would presumably be willing to state as much explicitly, and take full responsibility for the statement if it proved to be false. Of course, that's not what's going on here. These are the community's user talk pages; as the Arbitration Committee has not ordered that they remain deleted, the community may decide to restore them for the purpose of preserving a record of communications. Your threat which states: "Please withdraw the nomination; I wouldn't want a formal complaint to result." does not alter this situation. John254 20:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Did you ask him whether he supports your idea? Durova ^Charge! 20:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I have notified Cirt of this deletion review. In general, however, editors do not have an absolute privilege to remove significant portions of their talk page history without a compelling reason: if, for instance, I were to ask for the deletion of all revisions of my talk page from 2006 and 2007, the request would almost certainly be denied. John254 20:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC) reply

It's also worth noting that the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology/Workshop#Motion_to_undelete_Cirt.27s_past_accounts.27_talk_pages occurred before you submitted evidence concerning Jossi's interactions with Cirt going back to 2006, and that the arbitrators declined to order the talk pages undeleted on the basis of their perceived irrelevance to "the present matter". In light of your recent evidence, do you seriously claim that Cirt's talk pages from a period of time which it expressly discusses are still irrelevant? John254 20:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC) reply

remain deleted - those involved in the Rfar who need to can see the deleted pages, and they don't seem relevant to the remainder of us developing appropriate responses to the recent allegations of poor behavior by the user. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 21:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• question As I understand it the security concerns were edits that have now been oversighted? Is this accurate? JoshuaZ ( talk) 21:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• keep deleted - I suggest you make your case to the Arbitration Committee if you demand these be widely available. They have not demanded they be undeleted; I suggest this is for a reason. Your own unrelated curiosity is not a reason - David Gerard ( talk) 21:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• keep deleted and John254 this is POINTy disruption, see comments by three arbs: [7], [8], [9]. Not to mention there is an ongoing arbcase about this. Suggest next available admin close this right away. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Those comments about the perceived irrelevance of matters occurring in 2006 and 2007 would only still be applicable to the extent that the arbitrators intend to ignore a significant portion of User:Durova/Scientology_arbitration/Jossi_evidence. Durova, then, in defending her deletion on the basis of such comments, appears to be suggesting that much of her own evidence is irrelevant, and should be discounted. Of course, no actual basis for these talk pages remaining deleted has been articulated -- where there is no reason to remove talk page histories, we preserve them by default. John254 23:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC) reply