Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 April 24

Chris Kendall – The various deletions of the articles about the several Chris Kendalls are endorsed. Sandstein 06:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Chris Kendall is a popular public figure and should have a Wikipedia page. Cegguitar (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - the deletion request seem reasonable and the issue seem to be the lack of third-party sources. Also, a lot of admins disagree with you since the page is repeatedly created and deleted to the point that it is WP:SALTed to prevent creation. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've just deleted the most recent recreation and salted it. Can you show that this guy meets the notability guidelines for people? If you can't then Wikipedia isn't going to have an article on him. Judging from the most recent deleted version he's a musician who self-publishes his music online, does gardening, wrote an app once and has "a newspaper" which I suspect is just a self-published website, none of that makes him a "popular public figure" by any means. Note the 2013 AfD appears to be about a different person. Hut 8.5 17:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So it's not the article about the YouTuber? Same article space about different persons? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They're different people, Cegguitar's version didn't mention YouTube and was about someone from Indiana, the YouTuber was from Yorkshire. Hut 8.5 17:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK so this is confusing. Are all the deletions done for the YouTuber or for the guy from Indiana? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 2020 deletions are for the guy from Indiana. The 2015 deletions appear to be about the YouTuber but honestly the second one is too badly written to tell and was basically an attack page anyway. The 2012-13 deletions are about the YouTuber. The 2006 deletion was about a third person, an American electrical engineer. Hut 8.5 17:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse There's really nothing here which demonstrates he's a "popular public figure" especially if we can't even figure out which one of him he is. Easy endorse. SportingFlyer T·C 23:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, undo salting. The justification for salting should be repeated creation of unacceptable articles on the same subject; here we have independent creation of articles on different subjects. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We've had three deletions of articles on one Chris Kendall and five on another, either of those individually would be grounds for salting. There isn't anything stopping an experienced editor from writing an article here either. Hut 8.5 17:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Was determined to be not Wikipedia-notable. Very few YouTube personalities are Wikipedia-notable. Leave WP:SALTed due to the repeated re-creations. If anyone thinks the subject has become notable, use WP:AfC and the standard of evidence described at WP:THREE. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Who? It is quite unclear who we're talking about. When I google the name, the top hit is an IMDB entry for a minor actor who seems to be yet another candidate. As the name seems quite common, it should not be salted. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comparison of Canon EOS digital cameras – "Delete" closure endorsed. Sandstein 07:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Widely referenced NOPV pages for the two largest camera brands were deleted. (Comparison of Nikon DSLR cameras being the other.) Both pages have been around for years as unbiased cross-references to DSLR features, and are referenced from many places within WP and thousands of pages across the web. They were in the same format that many other WP electronic tech pages use (e.g., List_of_iOS_devices, Samsung_Galaxy, Comparison_of_Google_Pixel_smartphones). These are competing brands, with features and histories objectively tabled the same way. So clearly not WP:NOTPROMOTION and WP:FANCRUFT as argued for deletion. Digitect (talk) 05:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse- Consensus to delete was clearly established at the discussion. "Comparison of XYZ" articles frequently get deleted, especially if they're badly sourced. I can't agree that the closing admin got anything wrong in this AfD. Reyk _YO! 06:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Temp undeleted For this discussion. Wily D 08:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The noming statement makes the point "no third party sources", which there were none, and none were presented. Frankly, the rest of the delete !votes are pretty rubbish, but tossing the headcount, the third party sources issue pretty easily carries the argument. Wily D 08:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with WilyD. Those delete votes weren't wonderful but the nomination statement was a killer: we need third party sources. I'm not entirely comfortable, though, with the way we're deciding that the inconsistency doesn't matter. There are indeed a bunch of other similar articles. Just down the page in the "Corona in X" discussion we've agreed that consistency is important. Why not here too?—S Marshall T/C 10:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per WP:V we shouldn't have articles on topics for which there are no reliable third-party sources, and the responsibility for providing sources lies with the person who adds or reinstates the material. This is a deal-breaker in a deletion discussion, the only way an article can be kept if this is the case is if someone provides suitable sources. The other issues here are mostly judgement calls, but that alone is enough to justify the close. Hut 8.5 11:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The way to get this article restored isn't to point at other articles that haven't been deleted, it's to provide third-party sources. This shouldn't be especially difficult - many of the individual articles for the models linked from the list already have them (an example, picked more or less at random) - but it is labor intensive. If you're serious about fixing this, I'd suggest saving a local copy of the article now, while it's temp-undeleted; collect and add sources locally; ask for a restoration to draftspace when you've gotten a reasonable percentage of it done; and then ask for the AFD to be tossed out. —Cryptic 13:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There's really no other way the AfD could have been closed. Only a single argument to keep, and that was patently not in agreement with policy. The argument made there is that the page was WP:USEFUL. Of this there is no doubt. But, WP:USEFUL is not a valid argument for keeping an article. We live and die on sources, and this has none. On the other hand, anybody is free to take the text and (with proper attribution), do anything they want with it. I suspect it would be a welcome addition to http://camera-wiki.org/, for example. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Undelete~~Comment This page is a summary of all the model pages, which are well sourced. Making footnotes here is redundant and obfuscating. I'm not sure why that isn't immediately obvious. Comparison is the whole reason the sorting table mechanism was developed and why it is widely used across WP. Deleting this page is inconsistent at best. It is suspicious that just these two pages were singled out whilst ignoring every other current camera and lens competitor using the same format:

-- Digitect (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Not singled out. Wikipedia is simply large and I don't have the capability to go through all the list at once. I have nominated some of the lists you listed for deletion. Thanks for bringing it up. Also, unlike some of the list listed, this list is a separate page and itself does not have any sources. Fujifilm_X_series#Camera_chronology, Pentax_(lens)#Camera_compatibility, Leica_Camera#List_of_Leica_lenses, Leica_M_mount#M_Mount_camera_bodies, Phase_One_(company)#Phase_One, Hasselblad#H3DII, Carl_Zeiss_AG#Z-series_SLR_lenses, Vivitar#Manual_focus_zoom_lenses, Lumix#Model_history are all merged with the main parent article and not a separate list. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Canon and Nikon are the two largest and have far more history and models. Okay, so is it photography in general where you're trying to delete these? Or electronics in general: List_of_iOS_devices, Samsung_Galaxy, Comparison_of_Google_Pixel_smartphones ? Or all of WP: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=comparison+site%3Aen.wikipedia.org ? Digitect (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hominem. The IOS list you mentioned does have sources so as the Pixel one. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let the record show that the page had 1,394,082 total views, 24,458 monthly average lifetime, and 789 daily average the past year. It had 1,349 data points (19 columns x 71 rows) and was developed by users with 162 different logins over 11 years. Digitect (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Digitect: None of that has any bearing on whether we keep this as an article. Everything we publish in wikipedia needs to be verifiable. That's a core policy, and unlike notability, there's very little wiggle room. Quoting from WP:V: In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. For example, the deleted page claims that a 1DX has a Max ISO of 204,800. If I'm not sure that's true and want to verify it, I have no way to do so because there's no indication where that fact came from. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Every component of that table is derived from each linked model page, all of which are well-sourced. Digitect (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as closer: I would have no objection to restoring the articles to draft space for improvement, on the understanding that they would not be restored to mainspace without a consensus for such restoration. BD2412 T 17:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Please clarify, does improvement constitute referencing each cell, each model (row), or some other means? If copying sources from all the individual pages, could we instead develop a WP template for the top description that clarifies the (to me, obviously implied) references back to the model pages? I'm the kind of editor that would take the time to go back through the constituent pages to copy references back here, but redundancy is a terrible method for maintaining accuracy and currency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitect (talk • contribs) 17:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Improvement constitutes whatever is needed to gain community consensus that the article should be restored to mainspace. I will not be the one making that call. BD2412 T 18:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse There's nothing defective about either the close or the discussion, especially referring to the lack of third party sources. I also want to note that I'm looking solely at whether the AfD should be overturned, but I also want to note the following if I were to review a draft of the article: my review of the article shows there's other WP:NOTs this page might possibly fall under, including WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and WP:OR, so I would hope these issues would be solved if draftifyed and restored. SportingFlyer T·C 23:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Endorse - Correct close of an unfortunate discussion. I would have !voted Keep, but the close was correct based on the actual discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the close in that there is consensus that it was not an OK article. Overturn to "Redirect to Canon EOS", due to the AfD nominator and AfD generally failing to comply with WP:BEFORE. Alternatively, WP:Draftify may be OK, except that the content is problematic with respect to WP:V and WP:NOR. The parent article, Canon EOS, already has the start of these problems, that article should be improved first, noting its current maintenance tag. Forbid a repeat WP:SPINOUT without explicit consensus at Talk:Canon EOS. Protect the redirect if required, but there is no reason to hid the history; WP:OR like this can be worked on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 02:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, for better referencing. DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relist/draft/userfy The discussion was low quality but wasn't relisted even once. The topic is clearly part of a large set about this range of cameras and so it doesn't make sense to treat it in isolation without considering alternatives and compromises such as merger. See black and white thinking. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. Low quality discussion, the one keep !vote was well-specified and considered whereas the deletes were one-liners. Second-choice to draftify and improve. As mentioned above, there are plenty of similar articles for this and other classes of consumer electronic devices and it seems silly to delete one for the second-best brand of camera whilst leaving the others. Stifle (talk) 11:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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