Ivy Wolk– The consensus of participants is that new sources do not provide significant new information that would warrant allowing recreation by removing the salting. Recreation remains disallowed, pending submission of a competent draft to DRV, which will require additional sources to be published (or identified if they have already been published). The nominator withdrew, and the consensus is unanimous, enabling this to be speedily closed. If a draft is submitted through AfC, reviewers can review (and can decline); if the submission passes their review, they should seek that recreation be allowed in this forum.(non-admin closure)—Alalch E.23:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of thedeletion reviewof the page above.Please do not modify it.
Since the deletion discussion two months ago, two new sources have been published:this pieceinInterviewmagazine (which contains usable independent coverage in the introduction) and thisbrief bioinTeen Vogue.I've added these to the previously discussedprofileinVarietyin a draft atDraft:Ivy Wolk.She's not Emma Stone, but together these suggest notability under thebasic criteria.(For future reference, the title is currentlysaltedafter repeated recreations without discussion; I'm hoping this discussion resolves that.)Hameltion(talk|contribs)21:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Out of ScopeIt seems to me that this is not a DRV matter. This is a simple undeletion request because further sources have been found. There is also a new draft which renders that to be unnecessary. Let usspeedy closethis and let the new draft take its chance. 🇺🇦FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me🇺🇦21:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's already been G4'd twice and protected from recreation. This isn't just a DRV matter; there's no other place appropriate to discuss it. —Cryptic22:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorseand leave salted. Neither the interview nor the 180-word inTeen Vogueblurb tip the scale for a DRVPURPOSE#3 "significant new information" to overturn the unanimous AfD. The appellant has already created a new draft, but I don't see it getting through AfC, let alone another AfD.Owen×☎22:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.May not be quite there yet, but I think the blurb inTeen Vogueis a solid if short source. I understand we need multiple, good sources for a BLP, but for an aspiring actress/influencer "getting profiled by 'Variety'" is a pretty reasonable bar for notability in terms of weeding out spam.Eluchil404(talk)22:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorseand retain salting. As the original nom of the AfD, I am not confident that these additional sources provide significant coverage of this subject. The Variety source used previously has done a lot ofheavy liftingin justifying such a small article, with most of the details available largely being trivial. Comparing the draft to the prior revisions that were deleted, these little tidbits do not add information that seems significant, and the draft in question relies on three of this subject's social media posts to help with coverage. Unless there are actual in-depth coverage beyond just interviews with the subject and blurbs about them, I reaffirm the deletion. I am also not confident that a draft would be accepted at this state, but if done to bypass the salting without any significant improvements, I would not be surprised for it to wind up down the same path.Trailblazer101(talk)01:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should probably say that you are welcome to expand upon the contents in the draft, and I encourage you to do so over time. That is the best place to develop this article rather than attempting to get it back into the mainspace, which does not appear to be likely anytime soon. If you want this to be an article, then theWP:BURDENwould fall onto you to prove its notability by addressing the concerns raised in the AfD and in this DRV. Sources with significant new information are probably going to take awhile to become available, considering it is stillWP:TOOSOON,although there isWP:NORUSHto publish an article in mainspace.Trailblazer101(talk)20:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was notified of this discussion and the message stated that the article was deleted as a result of a deletion discussion. I didn't understand that notification because I wasn't the AFD closer. But I do see that I later deleted a version of this article as a CSD G4 without properly investigating the history of the article. I gave too much weight on the fact that it was the second recreation of this article over a short period of time since the AFD was closed. But the version of the article deleted through the AFD was poorly sourced and I can see that the latest version deleted via CSD G4 was an improvement over it. I wouldn't object to restoring this version of the article to Draft space so it can be reviewed by AFC. This is the standard procedure for putting an article back into main space after it has been deleted through an AFD but I'm guessing many editors do not know that this is the case.
Restore to draftwith the understanding that salting should be lifted if there is a valid, good faith AfC approval, or at the discretion of any of the administrators who have previously interacted with the article who also believe that G4 no longer applies.Jclemens(talk)04:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
EndorseI don't think she meets GNG yet, but she's very close with the Variety article - I don't think either of the other two get the article over the line. My feeling is we'll clearly know when to un-salt.SportingFlyerT·C04:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I am willing to do something that I usually will not do, and that is to conduct anArticles for Creationreview on a draft of a title that has been salted. I generally will not attempt to review a draft that I couldn't accept if I wanted to accept it. In this case, I am willing to perform the review, not to offer an opinion as to whether to accept it, but to offer an opinion as to whether it should be desalted. The question that I think DRV should address is only whether the draft has sufficient promise to desalt for future work. I have a comment for theultras,overly enthusiastic fans, who re-created the article twice in two months after it was deleted. This was almost certainly the work of a fan club, for a young female celebrity. Ultras think that they are advancing the prospects of a Wikipedia article about their person, but they are making it more difficult. Overly enthusiastic disruptive fans almost always annoy the rest of the Wikipedia community, and often get titles salted or even blacklisted. Patience isn't easy, but neither is impatience.Robert McClenon(talk)05:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
EndorseandKeep Salted- The sources are still inadequate, except for the Variety article, which is good, but was not enough in July and is not enough in October. The two added sources are just sound bites, and sound bites are not notability. The appellant or petitioner is just trying more of the same. At this point, she istoo soonuntil she achieves eithergeneral notabilitywith another real article, oracting notabilitywith two major roles.
Reference Number
Reference
Comments
Independent
Significant
Reliable
Secondary
1
Twitter (no matter what Mr. Musk calls it)
A tweet on X. Could not be viewed, but that isn't important, because tweets are not reliable.
?
No, not in 280 characters.
No
No
2
Twitter (no matter what Mr. Musk calls it)
A tweet on X. Could not be viewed, but that isn't important, because tweets are not reliable.
?
No, not in 280 characters.
No
No
3
variety.com
Significant coverage
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
4
www.teenvogue.com
"20 under 20" list of short profiles
Yes
Not really
Yes
Not really
5
/www.interviewmagazine.com/
A long set of sound bytes.
No
?
Yes
No
6
Twitter (no matter what Mr. Musk calls it)
A tweet on X. Could not be viewed, but that isn't important, because tweets are not reliable.
?
No, not in 280 characters.
No
No
If this wereAFDagain, I would say to Delete again. If this wereAFC,I would Reject it, because it is not really an improvement over the deleted article. This isDRV,and the title can remain salted for now.
Robert McClenon(talk)05:52, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon:I'd quibble with a few things here, foremost that theInterviewdoes not haveindependentorsecondarycontent:a recent discussionmakes that clear that the introduction to an interview should be assessed separately to the interview itself for ind/sigcov/etc. Which, when combined with the solidVarietyprofile, I'd say easily passes the letter of WP:BASIC as multiple reliable independent significant sources. I could understand if you called the intro too short, but that's a different question. I agree that the past attempts to create this article did it no favors and hope this try isn't one of the same.Hameltion(talk|contribs)15:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BASIC only works when the content speaks for itself and is obviously encyclopedic, i.e. article has encyclopedic breadth and detail and easily shows that the subject is "worthy of notice" (in the language ofWP:N), but there are no two sources each with SIGCOV (a rare situation). Then we should not delete the article, because doing so would be contrary to the purpose of the notability standard: ensuring that the content in the encyclopedia stays encyclopedic. Here, the content is weak.Draft:Ivy Wolkis thin. —Alalch E.20:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, feel free to close this. I'd guess the article would stick if it were published today without a deletion history. Good to know DRV remains an acceptable venue if and when good new sources come out.PS: Were you thinking ofWP:ANYBIOin your previous comment?WP:BASICis just a restatement of GNG.Hameltion(talk|contribs)21:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hameltion:I was thinkingWP:BASIC.Some SNG criteria provide alternative routes to article eligibility via a presumption of notability, and some are modifications of the GNG. NCORP, for example is a toughened-up GNG because it specifies that significant coverage must be in the form ofan overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organizationetc. That adds a layer of strictness on top of the general language of the GNG. Conversely BASIC is a lightened-up GNG because it says that the depth of coverage in a given source considered as the basis for notability does not have to be substantial, and that instead of needing to have two or three sources each with SIGCOV, we can combinemultiple independent sources [none of which are SIGCOV by themselves]... to demonstrate notability.So BASIC exists precisely not to restate GNG but to modify it in the area of biographies. This is because Wikipedia has a "bias" toward including biographies because it's a traditional encyclopedia subject and there's a strong impetus to include as many biographies as humanly possible because it's a perennial topic of human interest, so strict application of GNG would create too much friction.I will close soon if someone else doesn't. —Alalch E.21:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
EndorseAFD result. I would oppose recreation based on Robert McClenon's source analysis above; the draft is not ready for AFC at this point.FrankAnchor13:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do not allow recreationyet (keep salted). Reasonable attempt but the request is slightly premature. The Teen Vogue bio is the best source IMO. Make this same appeal again when another source like that appears. Give DRV some breathing space and don't rerequest in the next couple of months. With a good new source, permission for creation will probably be granted then. The AfD has not been challenged so there's no need to endorse its result. —Alalch E.20:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of thedeletion reviewof the page listed in the heading.Please do not modify it.
