Miss Lorraine ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Lorraine. Article was nominated by a sock-puppet user, see their user page in the discussion. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Miss_Lorraine — IZ041 ( talk) 23:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• Closer's comment If you had talked to me (like the instructions say you should) I would have told you that I would have been happy to relist this discussion given that the nominator was a sock puppet but that two other editors cast good faith delete !votes. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 23:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC) reply

  This is snippier than I would expect from myself so know I wish I had taken this down a few notches in terms of tone while keeping the content the same. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC) reply

  @ Barkeep49: Why not just close this DRV and relist then? I don't think that's snappy but it's not a requirement to discuss this with the closer, talking to the closer is designed to save a DRV, and I can save my breath endorsing the close. SportingFlyer T· C 02:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC) reply

  SportingFlyer, because the similar in nature appeal below had already been endorsed when I made this comment and so I felt speedy close criteria 2 no longer applied. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse per my reasoning in the AfD. This topic is just not notable, so there's no point dragging this out over a technicality ultimately because one editor feels WP:ILIKEIT about the article. Newshunter12 ( talk) 05:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Leave it for the closing admin's discretion. User:Barkeep49 is active and qualified. Of course, if he undeletes and relists, all other participants should be pinged. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. This review request, as in the case below involving my closure of another pageant AfD, borders on the disruptive. IZ041 made insubstantial arguments in the AfD, and now they seek a review without previously contacting the closing admins as per the instructions. On the merits, the closure was correct even if one discounts the nominator. The one "keep" argument by IZ041 was not compelling - the one cited interview by a regional newspaper is clearly not the sort of substantial coverage needed to establish notability for a topic. Sandstein 06:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Deletion review is a venue to address issues where the deletion process has not been properly followed. It is not a venue to get a "second bite at the cherry" when the AFD doesn't go your way. Stifle ( talk) 10:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - The closer correctly assessed the consensus. There is no error to appeal. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Procedurally, sockpuppets shouldn't have standing to nominate AfDs. On the facts, "Miss Lorraine" is a difficult search term because of course Lorraine is a feminine forename in the Anglo-Saxon world so you get a million hits about Miss Lorraine Thisthatortheother. I do think the editor who dismissed the Miss Lorraine title as a "local award" was displaying a remarkably US-centric world view. We've got an article on Miss Hawaii, and Lorraine is a far more populous and important region than Hawaii is.
  On balance, even if we decide the sources are so poor that there's no scope to translate fr:Miss Lorraine into English, we should still have found that "Miss Lorraine" is a plausible search term. It ought to redirect to Lorraine (given name) or Miss France. So I think it's incontestable that the nomination failed WP:BEFORE.— S Marshall  T/ C 16:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Miss Georgia World ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Georgia World. This article was nominated for deletion by a user that was blocked from editing for being a sock-puppet, see the nominator's user page in the deletion discussion. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Miss_Georgia_World — IZ041 ( talk) 21:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Pinging Sandstein for commentary as the closing admin, since I don't see where the user making the request discussed it with them. Obviously, the sockpuppetry was not known at the time of deletion. Wondering if this should be treated as a soft delete or relisted. — C.Fred ( talk) 22:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse but with no bar to recreation with batter sourcing, if possible. I would not object to draftification. The sockpuppetry should not matter in this case, the arguments were valid and policy based, and supported by the other editor who favored deletion. The editor who favored keeping this did not present any sources that pass WP:SIGCOV. Close was correct, although a relist would have been reasonable. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 23:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• The fact it was nominated by a sock doesn't mean that we should overturn it. However, reviewing the AfD again without the sock's nom/vote leads to a no consensus (with one editor advocating for keep without explicitly voting, and Newshunter12's vote.) I can't see the article history, and if Newshunter12's correct this should be deleted pretty easily. That being said, nom is correct - there is no consensus to delete at this time. Though no error was made on the part of the closer, I would overturn and relist instead of going overturn to NC. SportingFlyer T· C 02:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per my reasoning in the AfD. While a single delete vote isn't ideal, I stand by my good faith research that this topic is woefully not notable. Dragging this out over a technicality ultimately because one editor feels WP:ILIKEIT about the article isn't a productive use of time. Editors had two weeks to research this topic and expand the article, yet none did so, including the creator (who was the sole non-voting keep supporter). No valid claim to notability has ever been presented for this topic, so a DRV was unwarranted in my opinion. Newshunter12 ( talk) 05:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Closer's comment: This review request, as in the case above involving Barkeep49's closure of another pageant AfD, borders on the disruptive. IZ041 made no valid argument in the AfD, did not attempt to improve the article even though they argued that it would be trivial to do so, and now they seek a review without previously contacting the closing admins as per the instructions. On the merits, at least in this AfD, the discovery that the nominator was a ban-evading sock does not change the outcome: the one other editor did address the reasons for deletion and made policy-based arguments in favor of deletion. I would therefore maintain my "delete" closure. A relist seems not very helpful because the AfD was already relisted once without further comment, and nothing here suggests that a second relist would produce better sourcing to discuss. Sandstein 06:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• It's not required. The wording is "consider." I think we discussed making it mandatory somewhere without support, but I'm also rather forgetful and that could have been one of 1,000 different things. SportingFlyer T· C 06:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• There are some circumstances in which contacting the closing admin is pointless, e.g. they're inactive or have been desysopped. Hut 8.5 07:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse I was going to support overturning this on the grounds that there's only one person supporting deletion if the sock nomination is discounted, but honestly the state of the article doesn't justify it. The only sources cited in the deleted page or the AfD were the official pageant websites and a now-defunct self-published website, which means it doesn't meet the fundamental standard in WP:V that subjects must have at least one third-party reliable source. I would support allowing draftification, if it really is that easy to fix the problems then it can happen there. Hut 8.5 07:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse; nomination fails WP:DRVPURPOSE items 1, 2, and 5 of reasons DRV should not be used. Stifle ( talk) 10:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• Eh, 3 and 5 of the "DRV may be used" are met. I'm commenting, however, because of the incongruity of DRV #2 and the word "consider" at WP:DELREVD. The first seems to create a rule that you don't have to talk to the closer, but you must explain why; the second suggests that talking to the closer is optional, without restating the rule that you have to demonstrate why you didn't ask the closer first. Probably something we should take a look at elsewhere. SportingFlyer T· C 01:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - The closer correctly assessed the consensus. There is no error to appeal. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Weak Endorse with the note that I closed the similar "Miss Indiana" version with a "no consensus"-result a week ago. The sourcing is indeed not good here, and the closing admin Sandstein is not unreasonable in taking that into account. I remain open to allowing recreation of a better sourced article or establishing a redirect (as was suggested in the Indiana article). Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Category:Moses Sumney songs ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This category was deleted because it was populated solely with redirects, per the deletion discussion. With the creation of Virile (song) (no longer a redirect), this no longer applies. Also per WP:SMALLCAT: "subcategories of Category:Works by creator may be created even if they include only one page." And per the CSD cited ( WP:G4) when the category was deleted again: "It excludes pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies." I grieve in stereo ( talk) 16:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• Overturn G4 the deletion rationale in the CfD no longer applies, so the recreation shouldn't have been speedily deleted. Hut 8.5 17:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn had to double check to make sure we kept WP:SMALLCAT songs since I thought this would be deleted again immediately, but haven't worked with song CfDs before. Not 100% convinced that song is notable, but shouldn't have been G4'd. SportingFlyer T· C 02:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• The last log entry is:

11:41, 28 May 2020 Timrollpickering ( talk · contribs) protected Category:Moses Sumney songs [Create=Require administrator access] (expires 11:41, 28 November 2020) ( Repeatedly recreated A7 article)

Ask User:Timrollpickering to explain that log entry. What article? Moses Sumney songs has never been created. Moses Sumney exists OK?

Endorse the CfD.

Why does Category:Moses Sumney albums exist, it too is too small. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• @ SmokeyJoe: If you went one category up in the category structure instead of assuming WP:SMALLCAT applied (like I originally did before I added my comment), you'd notice the following text: Albums by the artists that recorded them. Please note that all single-artist album articles may have subcategories here, even if it's the only album the artist has recorded. Similarly, album by artist categories may exist even for redirects. Songs operate upon the same principle. This is a very easy DRV, as like it or not, it's now a valid category. SportingFlyer T· C 06:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• OK, makes sense. I'd still like to hear from the CfD closer. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• This particular deletion review is a case of avoidable bureaucracy. If the CFD discussion had regularly been opposed we would not have been here. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn G4. Virile (song) was created after the CFD closure, but before the G4 deletion, so the speedy criterion was no longer applicable. Category:Songs by artist is an exception to WP:SMALLCAT, but beside the point; determining whether it is or not goes beyond the scope of G4. Ə XPLICIT 06:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Susan Kuhnhausen ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

New sources have come to light, most importantly that Kuhnhausen's attempted murder was the main subject in episodes of two different, notable true-crime TV shows, in an episode of a notable podcast, and in at least two notable magazines (see below).

I would set a new article up as an article about the EVENT, AND NOT about the person (because the event is what is notable); part of the problem with the old article was that it was too biographical and not about the event. The new page I would create would not be based on the old page; I would create the page from scratch using the sources below. Another problem with the old article is that it was created primarily from news sources therefore ran afoul of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER; the new sources below fix this issue.

I think this can now pass WP:NCRIME, and that it could even pass WP:GNG based on the coverage in multiple notable TV shows, magazines, and podcasts. Here are the best sources:

• I Survived... - featured in an episode of I Survived..., a TV show produced by Lifetime; reruns are shown on TV
• KVAL news - mentions that the event was featured in an episode of Nothing Personal (TV series); I can't find more sources to corroborate this, but there is a clip of the show on the news site and an air date, so the episode of the show must exist
• My Favorite Murder - featured in an episode of My Favorite Murder, a popular true crime podcast
• Willamette Week - in-depth coverage of the event years later in Willamette Week
• Scrubs Magazine - coverage years later in Scrubs Magazine
• Stitcher - "Today in True Crime" podcast covers this event
• Hospital Watchdog - covers the event from the perspective of an ER nurse

I want to stress that a new article would be about the EVENT, not a biography, and would be created at "Attempted Murder of Susan Kuhnhausen". Thank you for any comments. Ikjbagl ( talk) 01:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• Question. @ Ikjbagl: Why do you need the deletion of the old article reviewed instead of just starting fresh at Draft:Attempted murder of Susan Kuhnhausen? — C.Fred ( talk) 01:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Possible Answer to User:C.Fred - See DRV reason number 3, new information. I am aware that it is the DRV way to bite new editors who believe reason 3, when the DRV regulars know that reason 3 should be ignored, and that new information requests should go through AFC instead. Maybe the documentation should be changed. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Response @ C.Fred: Robert McClenon hit the nail on the head; the WP:DRV page reason 3 is why I came here--I've learned a ton since this article was deleted, but I'm still learning now. This situation is complicated by the fact that I kind of screwed up the original AfD by moving the page in the middle of it (I was pretty new to Wikipedia at the time and people suggested framing it as an event, so I moved the page to "Attempted murder of Susan Kuhnhausen"). The page was subsequently deleted, but it did exist at one time at the place I am intending to create it now. If people think it's appropriate to just create the new article now, I would be happy to do so. Ikjbagl ( talk) 04:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC) reply
    • @ Ikjbagl: And that's why I said to create the draft article. The AfD result does not bar an article from ever being created on the subject. It does mean that if an article is recreated that is substantially the same as the article at the time of deletion, it may be speedy deleted ( criterion G4). That's why I recommended creating a draft. It "buys you time" to beef up the sourcing, because draft pages wouldn't be subject to CSD G4 the same way pages in mainspace would. Once you think the article is in good shape, you can submit it—and if other editors agree, it will get moved to mainspace.
      That being said, if you wanted to use the article as it stood at the time of deletion as the starting point of the draft, that would require help from an admin to undelete it and move it to draft space. Technically, that kind of a request can be done at WP:Requests for undeletion, but since we're here and talking about it, I doubt anybody will object if I (or another admin) restores the article history to draft space for you to work on. Is that what you'd like done? — C.Fred ( talk) 14:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC) reply
      • @ C.Fred: Okay, that sounds reasonable. If you restore it as a draft, I will plan to move it to "Attempted murder of Susan Kuhnhausen" and work on it from there. Thank you Ikjbagl ( talk) 22:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Well there's nothing stopping you from creating another article about it, but I don't think it's a good idea. The major problem here is WP:NOTNEWS: lots of events which get substantial news coverage (even events passing the GNG) are not suitable for inclusion here because we are an encyclopedia and not a news service. This event got coverage because of its sensationalist nature, rather than because it has any further significance. If the article is about the event then the relevant standard is WP:EVENT, which says Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. Does the event have any enduring significance? I don't think coverage in true crime podcasts or TV series shows this, because they have the same kind of standards as the media outlets who reported this at the time. Note the Willamette Week source was cited in the AfDed version. Hut 8.5 07:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, but encourage draftification. Encourage User:Ikjbagl to follow the advice at WP:THREE. Start with two or three sources that are independent (not interviews); reliably published (not Youtube); and make secondary source commentary on the topic. Many low quality sources don't help. Two or three quality sources are required. Don't pad them. don't WP:Reference bomb.

But note, WP:BLP1E is still a deletion reason. Can you counter by pointing to enduring coverage? This should interest continues after 10 years, and contains new information about her later life, but I am not optimistic this can overcome BLP1E. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment: The source is not actually YouTube; the episode of the TV show is simply mirrored on YouTube. You can go to the wiki page of the show and see the episode this event was featured in. Thank you for your advice. Ikjbagl ( talk) 14:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• allow recreation Sources have spanned more than a decade including retrospectives [1], [2] [3] and documentation of her work after the event [4]. She was interviewed by Anderson Cooper more than a decade later [5]. Hobit ( talk) 19:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Allow re-creation, and do not bite editors who come here with reason 3. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC) reply