Qian Zhijun is a young man who was the victim of an internet meme, when his face was involuntarily superimposed onto various images (he was a minor at the time). The article QZ was deleted in 2007, after various afds, a admin wheel war, several DRV listings and a connected arbcom case. So, highly contentious. A few months ago, User:WhisperToMe recreated it AND an overlapping article on the meme itself ("Little Fatty"). He also uploaded pictures of the face on the meme, and created an article on connected "movies" (see below).
The argument is that, according to some sources in Chinese, the individual has since (from 2009) become notable as an entertainer and actor. I remain unconvinced, but that's beside the point. The point is that you don't go about recreating contentious BLPs (and certainly not two of them), which we deleted them via the deletion process, without gathering a consensus that recreation is warranted by changed circumstances. I thus deleted the BLPs under CSD G4.
OK, I am not asking for a review of my deletion. I am asking: is there evidence enough of new notability to allow the recreation of an article (remembering it would concern a living person)? I suggest that there should not be an article on the meme, as we've decided already to exclude that as not notable in itself. However, if the evidence is that this person is notable by virtue of his more recent career, then we should allow an article on him (which would, presumably, include his part in an internet meme). The discussion thus needs to be focussed on whether, if the meme didn't exist, would this Chinese actor be worthy of a biography? OK, over to you. Pertinent text below:Scott Mac22:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
^"草根英雄走出网络大行其道." Hangzhou.com.cn. March 8, 2007. Retrieved on May 15, 2011. "小胖，本名钱志君，因为2002年自己无意中的一个表情，五年来被各地网友不断 .... 他来 说最好的机会便是，电影《三国之见龙卸甲》邀请他出演角色，饰演刘备的儿子刘禅。"
^Cite error: The named reference CarminaEastWest was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
"片中饰演富二代的网络小胖，在戏里戏外都是大家的开心果，薛之谦笑称他才是这部电影最大的明星，因为他的恶搞照片伴随着中国互联网的发展，几乎无人不知，无人不晓。这次是他首次主演电影，谈及在大银幕上的表现，网络小胖谦虚的说自己还有很多需要和前辈学习的地方，为了拍摄这部电影，他也事先做了很多准备工作，希望大家能够满意他在片中的表现。" Google Translate: "He played second-generation rich Internet chubby, play outside the movies are all in the pistachios, Xue Qian said with a smile that he is the biggest movie star, because his spoof of photos along with China's Internet development, almost no one I do not know, known to everybody. This is his first starring film, talked about on the big screen performance, network chubby modest and say that they have a lot to learn from their predecessors, in order to shoot the film, he also did a lot of preparatory work in advance, hope that we can satisfied with his performance in the film." - This says that this was his first role as a starring/main actor WhisperToMe (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of actual notability When the biggest claim at BLP/N is that HP "sponsored" a film - therefore the film is "notable", I worry. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The film itself was distributed throughout China. I do not agree it was the "biggest" claim. The film article is at The University Days of a Dog. I kindly ask everyone to see the whole article. Since he had a starring role in this film, that fulfills half of one criterion at WP:BIO for entertainers ("Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions."). The internet meme, the smaller role in the previous film, and the related cooking show should cover the other half. At Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Qian_Zhijun is the previous discussion WhisperToMe (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to recreation I think that, altogether, the various amounts of coverage is enough to present his notability. Individually, they wouldn't, but we don't judge by that. The meme itself is, clearly notable and should have never been deleted, in my opinion. The article on Qian is a bit different however. At the time, he would have been a clear WP:BLP1E case, but his various news coverage for a number of things since, from the film to the tv show, showcase his added notability beyond that initial event. SilverserenC00:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the only question is "whether, if the meme didn't exist, would this Chinese actor be worthy of a biography?" then the answer is no, but you're welcome to ask me again when he's secured a role in a proper film (not an internet video) that's actually being shot. I've reviewed the previous AfDs and DRVs (I know the nominator didn't want me to, but reviewing deletion discussions is the expected behaviour here) and I must say that Wikipedia in 2007 seems to have been quite a bit more testosterone-charged than I remember it being. The main problem was people using admin tools way too early. The more DRVs I see, the more I realise that early closes of almost any contentious discussion are counterproductive. They're also as disruptive as hell.—S MarshallT/C01:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The University Days of a Dog is a proper film that was screened in Chinese movie theaters. It was released in 2010. It premiered in Beijing in August of that year, and it was screened nationwide in September of that year.
Yes, I see that but to whatever extent I can trust google translate, he doesn't exactly seem to be a top billed actor in that film, though he's not a bit part either. Do we have an indication of that film's run time and budget?—S MarshallT/C02:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to find that information (run time, budget, gross earnings, etc.). I said that he was one of the "main actors" because the Chinese sources describe him as such.
Thanks for the tip, Silver! If the critic reviews are published in newspapers they will be very helpful.
All right. Although I'm not convinced re-creation is wise, what I am convinced about is that WhisperToMe has an arguable case. Arguable enough to belong at AfD rather than here. Allow re-creation without prejudice to a subsequent AfD.—S MarshallT/C17:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Recreate and Relist There is certainly new evidence for notability since the last Afd was closed. Sourcing is still more or less borderline for a BLP though, so I think this should be handled with a deletion discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why on earth would there be an AFD? The evidence is here. If the consensus is that the evidence is enough to allow an article, that's that.--Scott Mac08:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In 2010 Qian hosted a festival celebrating people with alternative body types in Shanghai.[7] He starred in the 2010 film The University Days of a Dog (一只狗的大学时光).[8] This was his occasion of starring as one of the main characters in a film. Qian did preparatory work before filming, and in an interview he said that he still had to learn a lot about acting.[9] In July 2011 Qian was married.[10]
New addition: After his marriage, some online users lamented the new status, since he had changed from his boyhood status.[11]
New addition #2 - The film producers said that they invited Qian to act in Three Kingdoms: Resurrection of the Dragon because, in the words of the China Radio International, "they think he's a really interesting guy and the movie needs a lighthearted character for comic relief."[12]
^"草根英雄走出网络大行其道." Hangzhou.com.cn. March 8, 2007. Retrieved on May 15, 2011. "小胖，本名钱志君，因为2002年自己无意中的一个表情，五年来被各地网友不断 .... 他来 说最好的机会便是，电影《三国之见龙卸甲》邀请他出演角色，饰演刘备的儿子刘禅。"
Do you really think that film which is bluelinked on WP, but where almost the entire article is an unsourced plot summary becomes a notable hook on which to hang this actor's notability? Really? Sorry - so far while some appear sympathetic to you trying to make an article, you have not shown that any real notability exists. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Collect, you said "but where almost the entire article is an unsourced plot summary" - The University Days of a Dog shows that the plot section makes up a small fraction of the article. The vast majority of the article is made up of sourced commentary from Chinese newspaper sources and RSes. The reliable sources talk about production, distribution, reception (2 reviews) and one source talks about themes. The film's notability, in my opinion, has been clearly established. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I referred to the "Three Kingdoms" melange - where 'almost the entire article is the plot summary (actually detailed plot), and the "sources" include one which speciailzes in naked girg pics <g>, and boxofficemojo which, AFAICT, does not establish notability. And the obligatory cite for Fatty as meme. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. The bigger film role is the 2010 The University Days of a Dog - When I say "He starred as a main character in a major movie" I am referring to the 2010 film, since it's his first time as one of the main characters (the Chinese sources said this). However, thank you for pointing out issues in the "Three Kingdoms" article. I'll go ahead and see what I can do for that one. The CNN editor La Carmina did use the 2007 film role to support her statement that Qian went from "obscurity" to "film star" WhisperToMe (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the article improvement has been going along. Anyhow I found one of the editors was a Singaporean who knows Chinese. I asked him to take a look at the debate here, since this debate needs Chinese speakers. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not really in a position to comment since I've never edited the article. But just by looking at the number of sources that are available, I feel that notability has been established. Even Baidu Baike has an article on Qian Zhijun here. I found on Chinese Wikipedia this, which I thought might be helpful. And come on guys, give User:WhisperToMe a break! We can see that he's putting in a lot of effort. Lonelydarksky (暗無天日)contact me (聯絡)16:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be alright if I made posts on the Chinese Wikipedia asking more Chinese speakers to take a look and maybe offer suggestions regarding sourcing/etc? I think it would be very helpful to have Chinese speakers involved. I had no hand in the Baidu Baike article (due to censorship in the Mainland, more Mainland Chinese use Baidu Baike or Hudong than Wikipedia). I did personally help start the Chinese language "Little Fatty" article as an attempt at a translation of the English article, with some help from Chinese native speakers. Speaking of "Little Fatty" - the version I wrote in 2011 had a section called "Significance" with quotes from two English language journalists who said why "Little Fatty" is important in China. I'm sure there are Chinese language sources which also offer opinions and analysis of the phenomenon. I personally think the old DRV conclusion that "Little Fatty" was "non-notable" is flawed based on the English-language source analysis I found. Maybe Chinese sources would show this more clearlyWhisperToMe (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Lonelydarksky. We don't allow articles to give users a "break" for their effort. Nor do the number of sources available indicate notability. The Chinese Wikipedia article was created by WhisperToMe and the "Baidu Baike" is simple another user-contributed project. So, none of this is an admissible argument in policy, nevermind a convincing one. All we have here is WhisperToMe bringing us sources - most of them tenuous and many about there meme. Nothing of substance is being presented here to justify allowing a recreation. If folks (other than Whisper) think otherwise, please state the argument, otherwise this fails. You need a policy-based consensus to restore.--Scott Mac19:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Scott, I have analyzed the previous deleted revisions of the article, and the AFDs, and I believe there are deficiencies in both the older article and the previous AFDs. And I also conclude that my 2010 article has significant differences with the 2007 ones. I would very much like to make my case about this. Then I would like to let people sift through the data. Also, while the above is in relation to the person Qian, the case I have is different, relating to the internet meme. I would also like to argue for keeping the meme too. Thank you. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Original deletion discussions seem based on two concerns: Notability, and "Decency". Recent deletion prevents examination of new article. Editor now told to stop, but limited evidence presented here answers Notability concern. I cannot read Chinese, but, for example, 'Fatty' to host TV show is strong. Appearance in big-budget production with major cast (Three Kingdoms: Resurrection of the Dragon) also indication that fame is not limited to Internet, or "15 minutes". "Decency" concerns presented at previous Deletion discussions ignore possibility that "Xiao Pang" ("Little Fatty") may be "cute" term of endearment in Chinese language, for example. (I don't know if it is.) Chinese film titles Enter the Fat Dragon, Skinny Tiger, Fatty Dragon show less sensitivity to weight-related humor than in West today. "Fat" nicknames were not so offensive in West in past either. "Minnesota Fats", "Fats Waller", "Skinny and Fatty" (some countries called Laurel and Hardy), "Fatty Arbuckle", for example. Actor now appearing in films, courting celebrity, not hiding in shame. Indicates this concern, also, groundless. Bravo to WhisperToMe for doing very good work despite discouraging opposition. Hanna Barberian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanna Barberian (talk • contribs) 21:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - previous rationales. Sourcing is still weak for a BLP. Youreallycan 02:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC) - Unlimited broadband access - unable ot investigate more at this time - moved to neutral. - Youreallycan21:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so what sources would make this stronger? As for the previous rationale regarding sensitivity to the nickname, why do you believe still applies, or what would change the decision on the matter? WhisperToMe (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, after my friend translated two more news articles (and factoring some others), here's the second revised version:
Qian starred in Three Kingdoms: Resurrection of the Dragon, where he played Liu Shan, the last emperor of the Shu Han.[1] His costars were Sammo Hung, Andy Lau, and Maggie Q.[2] The film producers said that they invited Qian to act in Three Kingdoms: Resurrection of the Dragon because, in the words of the China Radio International, "they think he's a really interesting guy and the movie needs a lighthearted character for comic relief."[3] In 2007 New Line Cinema invited Qian to act in a film version of "Ghost Blows Out the Light."[4] Qian also became the host of a cooking show on China Food TV. The program, Little Fatty’s Food Diary (小胖美食日记 Xiǎo Pàng Měishí Rìjì),[5] began broadcast from a television station in Qingdao, eastern Shandong Province on January 29, 2007.[6] The program was broadcast on Sohu, one of China's major web portals.[7]
In 2010 Qian hosted a festival celebrating people with alternative body types in Shanghai.[8] He starred in the 2010 film The University Days of a Dog (一只狗的大学时光).[9] This was his occasion of starring as one of the main characters in a film. Qian did preparatory work before filming, and in an interview he said that he still had to learn a lot about acting.[10] "Seven years ago a photograph can lead to an Internet meme. Seven years later, to put it more accurately, the more mature and better Little Fatty who acted in The University Days of a Dog is no longer the same as before . QQ Entertainment News said "Based on this point, the phrase "spirit, spirit" coming from him, it's difficult not for him to become popular. This is because his expressions draw laughter. This is similar to Uncle Zhao's comedies."[11] In the film, he portrays Daxiong, a university student who dreams of becoming a cook and is the son of a wealthy man. Director Lu Zhengyu said that Qian's character is a crucial source of comedy, and many of the comedic scenes are centered on Daxiong.[12] Qian's role was also his first in a romance role, since his character engages in a romance with a kindergarten teacher. As part of the film's promotion, Qian was scheduled to go on a tour in many Chinese cities, promoting the film.[12]
In July 2011 Qian was married.[13] After his marriage, some online users lamented the new status, since he had changed from his boyhood status.[14]
^"草根英雄走出网络大行其道." Hangzhou.com.cn. March 8, 2007. Retrieved on May 15, 2011. "小胖，本名钱志君，因为2002年自己无意中的一个表情，五年来被各地网友不断 .... 他来 说最好的机会便是，电影《三国之见龙卸甲》邀请他出演角色，饰演刘备的儿子刘禅。"
WhisperToMe, please stop. All you are doing is providing MORE sources - that's not the issue. The issue is whether they show notability - that depends on the quality of the source, and how much they focus on the subject, not the number of sources. What is happening here, is rather than allow people to review whether that's enough to establish notability, you are simply posting screeds here, which will put anyone off reading it all and commenting. I appreciate you are doing a lot of work here, but this is not about how hard you work, it is about the notability of the subject. There is enough here for people to assess, so let them assess it. As I say, sit back and let consensus form.--Scott Mac20:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Scott, I do understand that providing more sources without addressing quality and focus is not the way to solve it. Having said that, a user used as his rationale "Sourcing is still weak for a BLP". When I post more sources, I do try to post sources that address "quality" and "how much they focus on the subject." I believe that the content sourced from the new sources I post should reflect the detail exhibited by those new sources. I will concede now that there is enough to review. Thank you. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if a source's article title has the words "Little Fatty" or 小胖 (Xiao Pang, Chinese for "Little Fatty") in the article title and/or prominently features photographs of Qian, wouldn't it be safe to say that the source talks about him in detail? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Qian starred in Three Kingdoms: Resurrection of the Dragon, where he played Liu Shan, - he doesn't appear to have "stared" in the movie and doesn't appear to have a major part in it? He seems to have been chosen for his comedy factor and had a minor appearance in it? Youreallycan20:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He does have a small role in Three Kingdoms. He was chosen for comedy reasons (from my understanding that is common as a way to balance serious aspects). He has the large role in the 2010 film, where he was chosen for comedy reasons too. His character has a substantial story line in the 2010 film. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its so hard to investigate these externals. I will say that as per the above comment the first para is a bit exaggerated and the current para, could be re written from ... Qian starred in Three Kingdoms: Resurrection of the Dragon, where he played Liu Shan, the last emperor of the Shu Han.[1] His costars were Sammo Hung, Andy Lau, and Maggie Q.[2] The film producers said that they invited Qian to act in Three Kingdoms: Resurrection of the Dragon because, in the words of the China Radio International, "they think he's a really interesting guy and the movie needs a lighthearted character for comic relief."[3] to ...
I'm fine with that :) - The film article can talk more about his specific role. Condensing/paraphrasing quotes is a good thing. If you want I can invite people from the Chinese Wikipedia to investigate the external links. I could post a neutral message asking for the Chinese speaking community to take a look. Also, have you tried using Google Translate to get a rough picture of how much a source focuses on the subject? The two QQ News sources, for instance, focus on Qian's role in the 2010 movie in detail. I made a point of posting these sources to address the detail aspect. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) - I am actually editing on a short fuse tonight and won't be editing for the next few days at all, so... anyway, it does seem that he started off as a bit of a insulting viral thing but he has grown into it a bit and got a couple of jobs/bit of a career out of it, so .. I am not able to investigate more, so I can't support at this time, I will move to neutral in appreciation and acceptance of your good efforts. Youreallycan21:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update: It turns out Qian was supposed to have a minor role in the 2007 Three Kingdoms film, but his role was axed because the film's script changed due to financing issues. So ultimately he does not appear in the 2007 film. This was discovered after a Chinese Wikipedia user called the issue to my attention. The Singaporean user who I collaborated with updated the film page, and I added some more material confirming that Qian's role was cut out: Three_Kingdoms:_Resurrection_of_the_Dragon#Replaced_cast. However Qian still did the 2010 film. And then we have the cooking show. I believe that this source says the cooking show had "365集）" - MDBG and Google Translate seem to indicate this, but I'm checking with the Singaporean just to make sure. The source indicated that Qian also engaged in related corporate advertising in Mainland China.
Not in film he starred in != a reasonable notablity rationale. Nor is being in 365 episodes on a non-notable show. Does this mean he can never be notable? Nope. But so far, the "big film" seems quite off the table, putting him back at Square One. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Now, I researched the company that produced the cooking show. User:WhisperToMe/China Food TV shows that the China Food TV company operates its own national pay cable channel about cooking in China (like Food TV). This is the company that produces Qian's cooking show. If the cooking show aired on the channel, would you then say that it's notable? Or would you want more information about it? WhisperToMe (talk) 02:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The AfD discussion, which I participated in, failed to mention an important piece of Weber's notability: he has competed at the highest levels of baseball in international competition, including the 2009 Baseball World Cup, where he won gold. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Indeed it does, as long as we're considering the BWC to have replaced the Olympics since baseball is no longer an Olympic sport. Depends on if you count that as equivalent with the World Baseball Classic. — KV5 • Talk • 23:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My impression has been that we consider the Olympics, BWC, WBC, Pan American Games, and other international tournaments to count, though I don't know that we've fully delineated which count and which don't. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The closing admin did not consider the weight of arguments, treating the discussion simplistically as a vote, in clear contradiction of policy. (Polite attempts to engage the admin in discussion have not been fruitful.) This is problematic since there were a large number of voters who had misunderstood the template in question, and were arguing to delete it based on specious arguments. This decision needs to be re-examined by a competent third party. Stemonitis (talk) 07:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion review will be very tricky for most of the people concerned because there are hardly any neutral participants. Only those involved in the original TfD. Stemonitis, I do believe you gave some good arguments aimed at keeping the template. I'm not very good at offering succinct arguments in XfDs, and don't believe for a second that I'm not completely biased, because having read the discussion, I believe the closing admin came to the correct decision – but that's exactly the problem, I voted to delete. So how are we going to get any further with this DRV? I think you've got off on the wrong footing with Fastily, and I believe that you now will not be satisfied with any explanation he now gives. However, there is no reason to suggest that he had not competently reviewed the discussion. I don't think this review will get anywhere apart from repeating the whole TfD again. My opinion: a number of users were voting to keep the template in question also not knowing why. For us two, at least, arguments are only aimed at outweighing the other. So where do we go from here? I've also had a number of discussions completely go against my views. Sometimes it's just better to accept the fact that the closing admin has done his very best, and if you feel the urgent need for review, let the dust settle and try to use a different rationale. Jared Preston (talk) 08:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not necessarily contesting the outcome. I think the template is useful, but that doesn't mean I think the consensus is that it should be kept. Perhaps it is, and perhaps it isn't. It's precisely because I know that I am not a fair judge of the debate that I want someone else to re-examine it. The point is that a contentious issue needs clear reasoning from the closing admin, and that was not forthcoming. XfD is not about weighing votes, it's about weighing arguments, and that's what I'd like to see done by an uninvolved party, who needn't be an admin, as far as I'm concerned. (And no, I cannot accept that Fastily did "his very best", because he/she evidently just performed a vote count, and refuses to accept that that was flawed.) The ideal outcome here would be for someone else to go through the arguments carefully, understand them, and explain which arguments are most worthy. (For instance, I think I argued that the "permission" aspect was a misunderstanding and so that argument for deletion should be discounted; no doubt the other side could produce similar counter-examples.) The admin's reasoning has to be clear, and has to be policy-compliant. Anyone who merely counts occurences of the words "delete" and "keep" is not doing that (sorry, Sandstein). I am not trying to re-open the debate, but merely to properly close the previous one. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. I was not involved in the TfD. After reading the discussion, it appears that there was a clear (super)majority of opinions to delete the template, for reasons that were at least not self-evidently invalid, so the closure appears to be a correct reading of consensus at first glance. Because the DRV nominator does not tell us for which compelling reasons of policy the closer should have given less weight to "delete" opinions or more weight to "keep" opinions, I cannot support their request. DRV is not round 2 of the deletion discussion or a venue in which to hold the discussion on the merits all over again. Sandstein 08:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein, you're technically correct and your reading of the debate is very similar to my reaction at first reading. However, I was also uninvolved in the TfD and I'm not quite so sure. On examining the nomination statement again, reasons (2) and (3) are in fact reasons to edit the template, not reasons to delete it. Although I'm still digesting the others, it strikes me that this template does potentially have value.
For example, you and I both speak fluent German. We both know that there's a difference between schon and schön, and we both know that you can spell the latter "schoen" if your keyboard doesn't contain the character ö. (Mine doesn't, if I want to produce o+umlaut I hold down "alt" while I type 0246.) It strikes me that plenty of people in Wikipedia's target audience will not know that in German, ö = oe, and there may be some value in a template that tells them. The estzet (ß) means a double-S and may be represented with "ss".
I also speak French and there are regular features of French that it's informative and useful to tell people. The letter ç is pronounced as if it were "s", and a circumflex (^) usually indicates that a letter "s" has historically been removed from the word; the acute accent over an e is always pronounced a certain way, etc. I don't speak Spanish but I seem to recall that the tilde has a regular pronunciation value as well. Old English and Irish sometimes use the letter ð which has the value "th".
In fact, the whole matter seems less than simple to me and some of the nominator's concerns could be addressed by editing the template rather than deleting it. I need to go back and parse the discussion in more detail before I actually !vote but I want to respond to Sandstein by saying that I think this needs thought and could be quite complicated.—S MarshallT/C08:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I've printed the whole thing out (24 pages) and read it carefully. There are an awful lot of opinion statements in there, many of which show a failure to understand the issues and can be disregarded. Some of the points raised in the nomination are not reasons to delete, they're reasons to edit the template. But others do appear quite valid and not addressed during the debate. Those !voting "keep" are often !voting to keep an edited version of the template which, I think, would have to be language-specific, because transliterations that are appropriate for one language are not appropriate for others. After that exercise, I can see a consensus to delete not just through the numbers but also through the strength of the arguments, and I therefore endorse Fastily's decision. However, we should just be clear that although Template:Foreign character has been deleted and should not be recreated, this specifically does not prejudice against the creation of more specific templates such as Template:German character or Template:French character, and such templates could indeed be of value.—S MarshallT/C10:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time, but I'm still confused on one point. How does your suggestion of creating more specific templates differ from keeping the template, and suggesting it only be used for certain languages? The transliteration was always user-specified, so there is nothing language-specific about the template, nor does there need to be. If there's a reason to have a Template:German character, then there's a reason to keep Template:Foreign character. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the way I read it was that editors did not approve of the template as it was actually used. To use an example from the debate, Götterdämmerung had a headnote that read "gotterdammerung" instead of "goetterdaemmerung", which was distinctly unhelpful. I think the consensus was that the way the template was actually used caused confusion, and indeed misinformed, without shedding any real light for our end users. But I do see your point that this is fixable. For example, Template:Foreign character could be amended to require a language input, so what you'd actually type would be {{Template:Foreign character|de}}. In such a case precedent and policy suggest that we should fix the template rather than deleting it.
But I think the way the discussion went, any such fix would have to be forced. What I mean by that is that the consensus was that the existing template was not just unhelpful but actually damaging. The fix would have to be such that it left no confusing hatnotes on articles. Such a fix would be very complicated and challenging to code, because it would have to know that in one language ö=oe, in another å=aa, and so on for literally hundreds of languages. I think separate templates by language would be so much simpler to code and so much cheaper in terms of resources to transclude that they should probably be mandatory.
I hope I've explained that well. I wrote a long post because I didn't have time to prepare a short one. It's clear in my head but I'm not sure if other people will be able to follow it on screen, so please let me know if I need to try to say it another way.—S MarshallT/C10:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. That example is a very poor one. As far as I can see, Götterdämmerung never had {{foreignchar}}, and even if it had, it would never have suggest "Gotterdammerung" [sic] (but rather the valid Goetterdaemmerung; it was unfortunate that the debate got side-tracked by this non-issue). One fortuitous aspect of the template was that it didn't need to know the language in order to produce the transliteration, because that was user-defined. The way to achieve the fix you suggest was thus already implemented in the existing template. The template can be misused, and probably was misused in some cases, but it's the others we need to worry about. I couldn't see any reason why it shouldn't be used in other cases, and it seems that you could advocate a similar situation being used in those other cases. I don't see how that translated into endorsing the deletion. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I get for printing the debate out and reading on paper rather than reading it onscreen and following the links, lol. But invalidating that one example isn't to be confused with invalidating the central point, which was most succinctly expressed by bobrayner and Hans Adler during the debate.—S MarshallT/C12:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, at least I know now which arguments are considered to have won, even if I disagree with them. Thank you for taking the time and effort to investigate. It's nice to get some measured responses for once; there has been all too little of that in this case, both from participants and the closing admin. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
endorse deletion, as stated above, there was consensus to delete the template. this does not mean, however, that the subject cannot be revisit, and that a new template could not be created if there is consensus to do so. Frietjes (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is a bit disappointing (sob!) that Stemonitis did not have the courtesy to let me, (the initiator of the TFD), know that he wished to bring it back from the dead. But let me just say that I still hold by everything I wrote in my initial nomination and subsequently (measured or unmeasured), throughout an extremely drawn-out and repetitive discussion; I believe that the tenor of opinion overall was clear and therefore of course would be glad to endorse the deletion if am allowed a say in these circumstances.--Smerus (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Those of us without the bit cannot see the deleted content to see whether this was a valid G4. Either you need to undelete it for discussion or we need some detail on whether the content was the same. SpartazHumbug!07:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Egghead06 that this is not a good candidate for a G4 deletion because the new version seems to address the deficiencies for which the old version was deleted (i.e., lack of a professional career and coverage). Sandstein 08:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn As the person who raised the second AFD nom I feel I should comment. That AFD stated "there is no evidence to suggest that the reasons to delete last time (fails both WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG) no longer apply.". With the version recreated last week and deleted this morning, the first of those issues had certainly been addressed. Extracts follow:
Callum Driver ... plays as a defender for Burton Albion ... in January 2012 he moved on loan to League Two side, Burton Albion ... [he] made his debut for Burton on 6 January 2012 in a home game against Accrington Stanley, the match ended 2-0 to Accrington.[1]
It so happens that Burton Albion play in Football League Two, which is listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#List of fully professional leagues under "England", so WP:NFOOTY no. 2 is now satisfied. As to whether WP:GNG is satisfied or not, that is a much more subjective matter. However, to my mind, the article had been given substantial additional content, with references, compared to the previous version. This, together with my comment about NFOOTY, means that the article should not have been deleted under WP:CSD#G4, which states "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy ... of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies ..." --Redrose64 (talk) 11:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment since I reversed the speedy delete on appeal at WP:REFUND I will repeat my summary that now has played at top level, and article not the same as at AFD. Although I have reversed a few of User:Fastily's speedy deletes I will say that I support the vast majority of his deletions. So I do not see any systematic problem. User:Fastily does a huge amount of administrator work so a small subpercentage may need a check. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
