Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 June 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2019 June 25
2019 June 27 >

26 June 2019

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:Assyrian-Syriac Wikipedia cooperation board (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Back when I was a baby wikipedian, I participated this MFD without the tools equipped to give a reasonable arguement. I spoke with RL0919. In that discussion, I mentioned that the Assyrian-Syriac debate has since died down from the time the cooperation board was originally been created. However, the fragments of similar discussions still remains which require moves requests like this to fix. Understanding those previous discussions can only come when we have access to them, and since its deletion in February the few editors who edit in this topic field have not had as much for this initiative. RL0919 agreed with that arguement in principle, but he did not feel comfortable unilarely restoring the principle page when I never argued that some months ago. Hence, this is the appropriate venue. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I don't want to misrepresent anyone here, RL0919 only considered the talk page worth restoration. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. MJL has accurately described our discussion (as anyone following the link could see easily enough, I suppose). I don't object to restoring this page, but think the community should have the chance to weigh in rather than me making a unilateral decision. --RL0919 (talk) 17:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore I'm honestly not sure why this was deleted in the first place. Pages which are inactive but have history are usually archived rather than deleted, and nobody gave any particular reason for deletion in this case. Contrary to the nominator's claim that "the project never really became active" the talk page was 48 KB and had 112 edits. Hut 8.5 20:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, the nominator made a false statement. It may have unduly influenced participants who didn’t do thorough investigation. I think the last !voter’s unanswered point should have been given more weight. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore as one of the Delete !voters, based on the apparent conclusion that incorrect information was the basis of the deletion, and that no harm can be done by restoration, and there may be benefit to restoration. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per Hut 8.5. --MrClog (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Template:Lil Nas X – Restore and relist. Well, there is evidently an argument that the existence of new chartings/articles linked in the navbox that the "substantially identical" qualifier in G4 is no longer satisfied although the argument has not gone uncontested - the contestation is somewhat less supported here but not so much less that I'd totally discard it. Normally in contested speedy deletion cases we use a full deletion discussion to settle the problem, so that is what will be done here. Also, seeing as this is "deletion review" not "editor review" it would be apropos if we stop commenting on other editors. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Lil Nas X (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The template Template:Lil Nas X was deleted without a consensus reached. Though it was recently deleted, the template now has articles for "Rodeo" and "Panini". In the now-deleted talk page discussion, a consensus hadn't been reached as two editors (including myself) were opposing to the deletion, while only the editor who initially proposed second deletion was in favor of it. I'm calling for the restoration of the template / talk page per WP:CON as the decision wasn't made yet.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nice4What (talk • contribs) 20:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was deleted per WP:CSD#G4 due to Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_June_6#Template:Lil_Nas_X. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that your "new" version still didn't meet the rule of thumb of five entries mentioned at WP:NENAN, the rationale under which it was deleted in the first place. This version consisted of an EP and three songs from the same EP, all of which are well linked anyway (one of which is at AFD), making a navbox fairly redundant as it won't add any great degree of navigation that isn't already possible through normal linking. I would suggest that the WP:NENAN threshold (five articles not including the subject) has clearly been reached before attempting to recreate the navbox, and you should also wait until there is more than one album/EP with songs, so that there is some benefit to a navbox over and above normal linking. --woodensuperman 08:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore - Three songs from his EP have now charted in New Zealand, and the pathetic, bad faith "AfD" nomination was just closed with an overwhelming consensus to keep. I would also strongly encourage admins to keep tabs on woodensuperman's contribs. He has also recently merged Template:Tina Turner singles without any discussion and I strongly disagree with this action. There were easily more than enough entries to justify those templates being separate. There's a blatantly obvious bias against templates from this user.--NØ 11:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the accusations of bad faith. If you read my comment above, you will see that even with three songs and one EP, this still does not meet the rule of thumb of five articles, not including the subject, from WP:NENAN, which was the rationale that this navbox was deleted under in the first place. You really need to work on your WP:CIVILity, this was problematic in the original deletion discussion too. --woodensuperman 12:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you really need to check your attitude. --woodensuperman 12:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And you need to check what you post on the talk pages of regular editors. Hint, hint, we do not like to be templated as if we joined WP two days ago. Also, you AfD'd an article I created 4 days earlier and which still had an under construction template on it, so please stop acting like the beacon of kindness. Now let it go and stop derailing a discussion about a template.--NØ 13:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn then relist - Now that two more articles were added to the navbox, it seems that the article no longer meets G4 (It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version - two more entries, when there were 1 or 2 entries before, seems rather substantial within the context of a navbox). Because some editors want the navbox to still be deleted, I suggest relisting it after overturning the speedy delete. --MrClog (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. I have now created F9mily (You & Me), and WP:NENAN is satisfied. wumbolo ^^^ 13:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what’s happening with regard to this? As Wumbolo stated, WP:NENAN is now satisfied. The template was recently recreated and woodensuperman managed to get an uninformed admin to delete it yet again. Since we have ample consensus here, we should just have this restored. I believe the best version was the one created by Nice4What. The most recently created one had links to some nonexistent pages.—NØ 13:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • List of people in long marriages – Endorse, leave the draft for now. It's pretty clear that the original AFD close is considered to be correct here and that any restoration would require more than a title change due to e.g concerns about the inclusion criteria being arbitrary and WP:OR. A bit fewer people have commented on the draft and most of the specific comments appear to endorse keeping i, so that is what we'll go for here - although from the comments here I'd infer that it probably merits some more work before it could be restored to mainspace. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of people in long marriages (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with the longest marriages (2nd nomination) was closed by Sandstein as "delete" with the rationale:

In my view, the "keep" side did demonstrate that the topic of long marriages was notable because of its coverage in sources; this was mostly not contested. However, the "keep" opinions did not adequately address, in my view, the "delete" side's arguments that the existing or proposed sources do not allow the creation of a verifiable, non-OR list of longest marriages. One might, therefore, based on this AfD, create a prose article about the topic of long marriages, but not a list of "longest" marriages. I'm not sure about a "list of long marriages"; this might require another AfD.

I discussed changing the article's scope with Sandstein so that I could restore the list to mainspace in a form that does not violate Wikipedia:No original research. Sandstein wrote that "the existing or proposed sources do not allow the creation of a verifiable, non-OR list of longest marriages". A list of longest marriages was considered original research since as one editor noted "We are failing an authoritative or scientific source tracking the longest marriages".

Sandstein recommended "writing the prose article about long marriages first, and then adding a list of noted particularly long marriages; this will make it easier to establish that the list can be written without OR". I responded, "If I were to create a prose article about long marriages, I think the consensus would be to merge it to marriage since it wouldn't be long enough to justify a spinoff article from marriage (such as marriage and health). I will start with adding information from these sources about "long marriages" in general to list of people in long marriages and model it after featured lists like List of National Treasures of Japan (shrines) which has a sizable introduction and a detailed "History" section."

I revised the draft by changing the page to be about a "list of people in long marriages". This addresses the concern that there was no authoritative source that tracks the longest marriages. There is a requirement that the list meets Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which I had provided in a list of sources in the AfD. I also added a background section about long marriages.

I do not think this article meets G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion because the scope of the article has been changed to address the original research rationale for deletion. However, other editors believe that G4 applies (discussion here). The page has been moved from List of people in long marriages to Long marriages and the list has been blanked.

I have returned the page to draftspace at Draft:List of people in long marriages and restored the list so that it can be reviewed at DRV.

Restore to List of people in long marriages. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion and Salt This article was rightly deleted by the closer and was recreated in a round about way to try to keep the article fundamentally the same. A WP:SYNTH of poorly sourced material that reliable sources do not group together in this way, so failing WP:LISTN and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Close was absolutely correct. Perhaps a sprinkle of salt is needed here. --Randykitty (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I !voted in the AfD, but procedurally, this really comes off as a pointy attempt to avoid the result of the AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 19:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the close as written and take no further action. The close reflected consensus and the re-creation of the list was within the boundary of the close. Several of the delete !votes (including my own struck delete !vote) expressed concern that the list was presented as a definitive source of the world's longest marriages. The close reflected those concerns but left the door open for a rename and recreation. As such, if Cunard wants to re-create the list he should feel free to, and anyone who wants to take it back to AfD should also feel free to. But it should be a fresh AfD as the scope of the article has somewhat changed. schetm (talk) 05:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Schetm: You may not have been concerned about the idea that a list of marriages of an arbitrarily long length was being presented as a list of the "longest marriages", and may not have a problem with the exact same list being revived as just an arbitrary list of marriages that some newspapers have described as being long, but your view was definitely not shared by the majority of the unstricken delete !votes. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, but neither endorse nor formally condemn re-creation I don't have a view on the notability of the topic of "long marriages", per here, although it seems Cunard does given his revert of my cutting the list and moving the page back into the draftspace with "list" added back to the title. I don't think "list of marriages that have been described as extremely long" is a very encyclopedic or useful topic, for reasons I outlined here. I believe consensus was clearly against there being a list of "longest marriages" and there was a slightly less clear, but nonetheless present, consensus against a list of "very long marriages" (none of the keep !votes except Cunard appears to have made the distinction, as their arguments almost all focused on notability, while several of the delete !votes including my own expressed skepticism about both). Given this, consensus should be required before recreating the list, regardless of whether it says "longest" or just "long". No opinion on whether the separate topic of a prose article on long marriages, which is what Sandstein's addendum seemed to encourage, would be worthwhile. (All that being said, if this DRV ends with some form of "endorse creation of new list", the list should be genuinely new, not just a restoration of the old list with all its problems that I and others already highlighted at AFD.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but make it clear that any recreation has to be more then just a rename It all a bit arbitrary, ORy and rather trivial. It reads like using a list to get around notability.Slatersteven (talk) 08:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Reyk: I'm not seeing any evidence of selective pings. Can you provide diffs? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The deleted article was moved to draftspace at 10:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC). I added information about long marriages to the draft at 07:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC) and I pinged the "keep" participants at 07:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC) asking for help with improving the draft. No one responded with additional suggestions. So more than one week later, I moved the draft to "list of people in long marriages" at 00:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC). Another editor moved the article to "long marriages" and pinged the "delete" participants at 14:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC). To avoid controversy, I should have pinged the "delete" participants also when I was asking for help with improving the draft.

Cunard (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closer's comment: I recommend denying the request and deleting the draft per G4. This is substantially the same content that was deleted per AfD, apart from a bit of prose that maybe belongs into some prose article about marriage. Sandstein 14:09, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your close explicitly noted "I'm not sure about a 'list of long marriages'; this might require another AfD." I recreated the article with the same list because every entry for a "list of longest marriages" remains valid for a "list of long marriages". I could recreate a list of people in long marriages from scratch but that would not make sense because it would contain the same entries. People who are in a longest marriage are the same people who are in a long marriage. If there are concerns about particular entries in the list being inaccurate, please explain your concerns so I can edit the draft to address them.

    Your close explicitly noted the reason for deletion as being "the existing or proposed sources do not allow the creation of a verifiable, non-OR list of longest marriages". This is owing to the lack of an authoritative source that tracks the longest marriages. This reason for deletion would not have applied had the article's title been at List of people in the longest marriages. This is why G4 does not apply and a new AfD should be required.

    Your close noted "In my view, the 'keep' side did demonstrate that the topic of long marriages was notable because of its coverage in sources; this was mostly not contested." I don't think the sources I provided in the AfD "demonstrate that the topic of long marriages was notable". I think they instead demonstrate that "demonstrate that the topic of people in long marriages was notable" (WP:LISTN) since they all were about specific groups of people in long marriages.

    Cunard (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Cunard, you can use the word "explicitly" as much as you like, but the fact is that I and everyone else saw that you were "creatively interpreting" the wording of Sandstein's close (or, rather, the addendum you convinced him to make) in order to get around the fact that there was a clear consensus to delete the article. I already told you here that what you had done was not in accordance with what Sandstein said it might be appropriate if you did, and I'm frankly shocked you could be continuing to deny that fact. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: I called out Cunard for disruptively placing essentially the same exact article that had been deleted back in the mainspace without consensus, having pinged a bunch of editors who had !voted keep in the original AFD. He moved the page back to the draft space (not being an admin or one of those newfangled page-movers he couldn't do so without leaving a cross-namespace redirect, which is not really a problem given that both are likely to be deleted in the near future anyway) and opened this DRV. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay, you deleted the redirect. That's cool too, I guess. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I've got this sorted out now. I compared the version that was deleted at AfD and the current draft. I believe that the front matter added (lede and "Background" section) make these sufficiently different that WP:G4 should not apply and we should allow the new draft. My personal opinion is that this is still not notable, based on the AfD's conclusions, but I'll leave that to whoever reviews the draft to decide, and/or possibly another AfD, should that ensue. If I were to review the draft in it's current state, I would decline it. I have not read the AfD in sufficient detail to draw a conclusion on the validity of the close, so I'll remain neutral on that issue. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Having now spent some time reading the AfD in detail, I agree that the close correctly summarizes the discussion, so endorse. I still think, however, that the draft is not G4-worthy. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Dario Hunter 2020 presidential campaign (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

1.) The discussion produced no clear consensus for delete/merge as opposed to keep. 2.) Furthermore, only one recommendation (out of 12) argued for an outright delete (as opposed to 'delete/merge' or 'keep'). 73.75.84.123 (talk) 03:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also requesting a temporary undelete for the duration of the deletion review. 73.75.84.123 (talk) 04:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello. I was pinged as the closing admin of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dario_Hunter_2020_presidential_campaign. A brief rationale for my closure:
    • By the numbers, 6 users argued for some combination of delete and/or merge, and 6 users argued to keep. However, this debate appears to have been influenced by off site canvassing, with several single-purpose accounts involved, notably Special:Contributions/AlanAugustson, Special:Contributions/BrightNewMorning, and Special:Contributions/Sticktoit all arguing to "keep".
    • While Hunter himself is notable, his campaign isn't yet. Users in favor of deletion cited that there has been very little substantial coverage of his campaign. Commenters at AfD noted that some sources were really only talking about Hunter himself, not his campaign. Those sources that did cover his campaign were generally local media covering his announcement or campaign events, and did not include significant reporting outside of his basic political platform.
    • Delete !voters also noted that there was substantial overlap in the material covered in the two articles. Indeed, the only substantive information in the now-deleted article about the campaign that is not also covered in his personal article is a section about his campaign visits to Carbondale, IL, and to Haifa, Israel, with some very brief notes about his platform.
    • On the other hand, the keep !voters asserted that there are enough sources to meet WP:GNG (which the delete !voters obviously dispute), that more sources will likely be added as the campaign progresses (but see WP:CRYSTAL), that Hunter himself is notable (which is irrelevant), that Howie Hawkins 2020 presidential campaign exists (but see WP:OTHERSTUFF), and that there are also national-level and international sources (but the national-level sources have only shallow coverage about the fact that he is running, and the international sources are primarily related to the fact that he visited Israel).
  • So I stand by my initial conclusion that there is a consensus to remove the article. Given the choice between slapping a "merge" tag on it and deleting it, I reviewed the content of the two articles, and noted that there was very little substantive material in the article about the campaign that wasn't already in the article about Hunter. ST47 (talk) 04:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to No Consensus - While the closer has explained why they find the arguments for Delete and Merge to be a consensus over Keep, the closer's rationale has the quality of a supervote. There are good arguments for Delete/Merge and for Keep. The result should be overturned to No Consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse This was a badly socked/canvassed AfD. By my count, four of the keep !votes should be downweighted or discarded significantly both on SPA grounds and lack of a convincing argument. The other two keep !votes wave at WP:GNG. The delete arguments, specifically jp16103 and E.M. Gregory, raise concerns (on top of the ones addressed by the closer) of WP:PROMO, WP:NOTWEBHOST, and cast doubt onto whether this actually meets WP:GNG that wasn't rebutted by any of the keeps. An interesting one, but easily the right call in my book. SportingFlyer T·C 07:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SLAP the closer User:ST47 for the poor closing statement. The IP nominator here is correct, there was no clear consensus, it requires an explanation. The explanation needs to be an informative summary of the discussion and an explanation to any editor passing by as to why it was closed that way. I see an explanation above, please add the explanation to the close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The user who closed the discussion pointed to duplication, but the only thing under ‘2020 Presidential campaign’ in the article Dario Hunter is two sentences on when he launched the exploratory committee and when he formally entered the race. No discussion of press coverage of his platform or campaign developments, as was provided from multiple reliable press sources in the deleted article. When most of the significant info (from reliable, independent sources) disappears that’s not a deletion for duplication. Btw, please temp undelete so everyone can once again see the deleted article and compare. 99.203.14.236 (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The series of SPAs weighing in was troubling, especially since, setting aside the opinions of the SPAs, only 1 editor argued Keep. Three active editors plus Nom argued to delete, and one argued merge to the candidate's page, which comes to the same thing since this candidacy page was entirely or almost entirely a duplication of material already on page Dario Hunter.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse, or relist. My involvement with the AfD was tagging a few comments with SPA templates. I think a delete close was ultimately correct, but in a controversial discussion like this, it's a good idea to go into some more detail in the closing statement. I'm also a little concerned about ST47's statement above that he reviewed the content of the two articles, and noted that there was very little substantive material in the article about the campaign that wasn't already in the article about Hunter. When I close an AfD, I try to stick to just what the AfD participants said, without looking at the actual article. Sometimes I do look, to verify that what the participants are saying makes sense, but it's always a fine line between just doing a reality check and forming your own opinion (i.e. supervote). Usually, by the time I start examining the actual article text, I'll just add my own opinion as a participant, or simply move on and leave the close for somebody else. I'm not saying this was a supervote, but I think the community would have more confidence in the result if we let another admin re-close it. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse given the apparent canvassing the closer is entitled to downweight or ignore participants who are SPAs, new editors, or unregistered editors. I can only see two people with much editing history who supported keeping the article outright: Namiba and A. Randomdude0000. Given the support for deleting the article that implies a Delete closure. If someone wants to merge or redirect it somewhere I'd support restoring the edit history. Hut 8.5 20:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus Looking at the AfD there was no consensus to delete. I'm not sure if there was consensus to either merge or keep, but there certainly was not to delete. The closer does not get to pick tjheview they prefer in circumstances like this, especially not if the close is without an explanation. DGG ( talk ) 23:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse If someone wants access to the article's minimal contents to merge to the main article, as many voters suggested, that would be perfectly welcome, but the closing still matched the consensus of arguments from experienced editors. Reywas92Talk 06:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I think there are some issues with the lack of closing statement in a controversial AfD and the concerns raised by Roy but given the appropriate weight attached to the !votes of the canvassed or at least SPA this is a reasonable reading of consensus for this discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. A closing admin does not need to explain their decision when the result, after discarding the socks and SPAs which is mandatory, is so clear. Once having determined, correctly and incontrovertibly, that the consensus was that there should be no separate article, the closing admin was also entitled to form, and should be commended for forming, their own view that there was nothing worth merging. That is a much better course than simply slapping a merge tag on the article and walking away.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Vocal hiccup (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Anyone know why this page hasnt been deleted yet despite a successful request for deletion? Idiacanthus 18:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The page was deleted on 22 June 2016, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vocal hiccup, then recreated as a redirect on 26 November 2016, which is the current state. This all seems perfectly reasonable, so I don't think there's any action that needs to be taken here. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: That makes sense. Just wondering now though, why does Vocal Hiccup redirect to Michael Jackson's Thriller?
That I don't know. The redirect was created by User:Staszek Lem. You might want to ask them directly. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The target article mentions that Jackson used a technique called "vocal hiccup" on the album. Hut 8.5 20:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to the ping, I did some research, found the subject to be encyclopedic and nontrivial (just like "moonwalking", it turns out "vocal hiccup" is not at all Michael Jackson's invention) and restarted the article afresh. That's what wikipedians are supposed to do:exercise due diligence and write articles rather than deleting them.`Staszek Lem (talk) Staszek Lem (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Please restore the article history. It may contain some other, unreferenced, but possibly usable/serarchable facts. It looks like this article fall prey of "deletionists" and overlooked by the fans of Buddy Holly and Michael Jackson. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The new article looks perfectly reasonable and well referenced; I can't see any reason we shouldn't keep it. @Sandstein: in light of the new article, the request to undelete the history seems reasonable too, so I've gone ahead and done that. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2019_June_26&oldid=1039546197"