Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 September 1

Permanent North American Gaeltacht (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

• A rewrite is available at User:Danjdoyle/Permanent North American Gaeltacht.

Xoloz moved this back to mainspace, but the DRV (endorsing deletion) had only just been speedily closed because the previous review had only jsut closed endorsing deletion. The new version is different, but does it fix the AfD issues? Should it be left, relisted, kept deleted? Not sure. I moved it back to userspace while we think about it. I'm rather concerned that this appears to be User:Danjdoyle's sole contribution, and yet it is very well formatted and wikified. Is Danjdoyle a returning user? Are there admins who know of a history with this subject matter? Something smells just slightly off. Guy (Help!) 17:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: Xoloz, I'll note, is also the one who speedily closed the DRV. I tried reopening that DRV under the circumstances, but Xoloz reversed that, and left the follow note on my Talk page, which I've been too preoccupied to follow up on:

The reason I closed the August 23 DRV early was because the deletion had been endorsed the prior day at DRV, and the newbie DRV nominator made a nomination that sounded clueless, and wasn't going to garner support. When I talked with him a bit, I realized that -- despite his (understandable) mistakes in presenting his case, he was a good-faith guy with a good case for undeletion. When I prompted him to write a new draft, he did a fabulous job in just a few hours. Yay for him, yay for Wikipedia, yay for solid, sourced content. You are welcome to open a new AfD on the new draft, but I suspect it will survive. In any case, there was no abuse of process whatsoever -- wiki-process always allows for substantial article improvement to supercede prior deletion decisions You've been around long enough to know that; and to know also that the question of whether an article is "substantially different" is routinely left up to individual admin judgment through CSD G4. The goal is a good article, and that's what now exists, and what changed over the course of a day. Best wishes, Xoloz 04:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I haven't had the chance to look at it in detail, but it seems to me that doing things aboveboard and transparently beats playing cowboy any day. "Yay for him, yay for Wikipedia, yay for solid, sourced content"? I'd say "Yay for doing things properly and out in the open", instead. --Calton | Talk 01:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• allow re-creation on the basis of at least additional references. And I suppose, list again at Afd. DGG (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment As everybody should know, substantially different rewrites escape G4, and whether a rewrite escapes G4 is a decision individual admins (here, me) make all the time. I judged the new article different, and stand by that judgment. Guy's observations about the intentions of the article's author seem interesting to me; but, bright and cheery WP:AGF fellow that I am, I wouldn't have dreamt of them, and still don't think they amount to anything serious. As to Calton's observation, all of this was done very "out-in-open", and anyone may read my polite exchanges with the author that led me to userfy the content originally at his and my talk pages. I welcome a relisting at AfD for the new draft, which is always an editorial option, as we know. Xoloz 02:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• And as everyone knows, doing things open and aboveboard is how things ought to be done: speedily closing the original DRV as "endorse deletion" followed immediately by actually undeleting it, well, isn't. Retracting your deletion endorsement/speedy closing and reopening to let others get a look at something that had already been through an AFD -- you know, the actual purpose of DRV -- would have been the obvious thing. And yet, you not only didn't do that, you took active steps to prevent it. Like Guy says, something smells just slightly off. --Calton | Talk 23:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• I think there is some confusion as to the order of things. Xoloz closed the 17 August 2007 DRV five days after it was opened, so the original DRV was not speedily closed. Xoloz closed the 23 August 2007 DRV based on Corvus cornix's speedy close recommendation and the fact that the nominator did not post any substantial new information to review. The 23 August 2007 DRV appears to have been a mistake by the nominator (belief that "reference" meant testimonials as to importance of the topic). Xoloz then worked with the nominator who produced a new article with substantial new information. Concluding that there was nothing to discuss at DRV, he posted the new article. We can now review his actions in this DRV, but Xoloz did not do anything many other admins have done. Not every recreation of an article needs to go through DRV and this is an example of one. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 22:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Further update I contacted Guy for an explanation regarding his failure to discuss this with me prior to DRV, and his unusual move of the content back to userspace. He blanked my message, offering no explanation. Since it is unorthodox for the move to be reverted prior to a DRV discussion, I am reinstating the article. Anybody who wants to can, as far as I'm concerned, AfD it immediately, as was always possible. Xoloz 14:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• I believe the term for your action is "wheel-warring". And the hurry to put it back into article space is what, exactly? It's not as if it's unavailable to read. --Calton | Talk 23:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• A bit harsh. I just thought that the action looked - to an outsider - capricious. Not to doubt Xoloz's good faith, but we have here a work by essentially a single-purpose account, deleted by consensus, then expanded by the single-purpose account with a view to including the topic despite that earlier consensus. In my view that needs a bit more thought and input, to show we've doe the right thing, is all. I am absolutely not a process wonk, I just wanted more people to look at the new content - I could just have relisted it, but I thought this would be simpler and get more input more quickly. Guess not. As for the subject, I am unconvinced of its significance, but I am not an expert in this field. 20 unique Googles with Wikipedia at the top really does not look good. Guy (Help!) 11:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Not to doubt your good faith, Guy, but this fellow is not an SPA -- he had an account since 2005, and had made a few edits to Irish articles (I checked before I did anything.) For someone who isn't a process wonk, you certainly chose the most circuitous route possible. You also failed to discuss this with me before DRVing, and didn't even notify me of the DRV -- hardly the polite conduct I'd expect of you. To top it off, you blanked my attempt at a talk page chat with you which (although you've explained it to me now) is the only reason I reverted your userfication -- an action an admin won't explain when asked is open to reversion as a conceded mistake. In general, I think I've been treated quite shabbily in this matter. Calton at least tried discussing this with me at my talk, though he continues to object to my reasonable explanation. I really can't explain your conduct, Guy, and it seems as "fishy" as anything I've done. Xoloz 15:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• I too think calling this wheel-warring is a bit harsh. DRV#2 (speedy close) appears to have been confused for DRV#1(close after five days) and Guy blanked Xoloz's talk page request by mistake. Only admins can see delete material and this DRV#3 really is a review of Xoloz's unilateral decision to restore the article, which means the article should be visible during this discussion. Xoloz's actions were not really harmful and/or needlessly divisive. It might have been better for appearance sake to have another admin restore the article for the purpose of this review, but no real wheel war seems to have occurred. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 22:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• (btw)Endorse myself as my action was normal, proper, and outside the scope of previous DRVs, as the draft is different, if it isn't obvious. No objection to relisting. Xoloz 15:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Your action had the effect of sidestepping transparent examination of the evidence -- the point of a DRV -- so I'd say not. --Calton | Talk 23:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• My action only "side-stepped" the question of whether the drafts were "substantially identical", a relatively easy determination that single admins make every day (and a determination affirmed by TexasAndroid). I have never done anything to impede an AfD, which is the natural next step in the process, and allows ample time for examination. You're charges are, to be frank, quite silly, and unbecoming of an established editor, who ought to know how things work around here. Xoloz 14:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Deletion Review purpose #2 is to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article. A new article was written with significant new information but the information in the deleted article was not needed to write a new article. It seems that a DRV was not necessary to address the 17 August 2007 DRV. Xoloz closed the 17 August 2007 DRV, so he was an admin who could make such a decision to restore the article. Other admins could have done the same thing as Xoloz did so long as they posted a courtesy notice on Xoloz's talk page. From that point, anyone else could AfD the article or DRV the actions of the restoring admin, here Xoloz. Moving the article restored by Xoloz from article space was not really an option. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 22:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• No action (endorse) - The original deletion seems to have been endorsed properly and in good faith and the subsequent recreation as different material has already been backed-up by a second administrator and would anyway not be a reason to reopen the already closed DRV. Any further concerns whether the new article now meets standards can be raised at a second AfD and concerns regarding the originating user elsewhere. --Tikiwont 15:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Leave the article in articlespace. The recreation is substantially different (and seems to be a copacetic article to me); I don't see a problem with Xoloz's actions here - administrators are deemed sensible enough to know whether or not an article is a recreation without formal approval being required via DRV; any subsequent deletion of this article should be done via a fresh AFD. Neil ム 12:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Xoloz's actions as the admin who supported Xoloz's original move by declining the subsequent G4 speedy. Xolov has made a determination that the revised article is "substantially different", and that the original AFD concerns have been met, I'm willing to trust his judgement. If anyone has problems with the article in it's current state, another AFD is allways an option. - TexasAndroid 18:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse restoration overturn - This is a review of Xoloz's unilateral decision to restore the article after the 17 August 2007 DRV#1 endorsed the deletion. I'm not sure exactly what action this is a review of, but the The article looks good, Xoloz's actions were appropriate, and we should leave it in article space. If someone want's to AfD it in a few weeks, that would be fine. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 21:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Networked information economy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This page was speedy deleted as "spam". I did some quick research and can't quite figure out exactly what it would be spam for. I don't really have a dog in this hunt or too much knowledge of economic theory, but a quick google search turned up 10,000 hits. The problem with the article seemed to be that there were way too many quotes and it didn't follow Wiki-format. There are external links to the website of the person who is considered the expert on the theory, but his WP bio is listed here and a paper he wrote is apparently notable enough to be on WP here. The point being, this doesn't look like spam and did not meet speedy deletion criteria. - Smashville 00:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• I tagged the article as spam because it (and a series of other articles related to Benkler created by the same editor) appeared to only be on WP to promote the author's work, with that editor then linking to them from slightly-related articles, generally in 'see also' sections without adding any content to the referring article. Probably self-promotion, hence, spam. Wnjr 12:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and list at Afd. Personally, I do not think the subject will be considered distinct and notable, and i think the same about the paper. The author almost certainly is--a major academic. But in any case G11 is for articles that could not be readily rewritten to eliminate the spam, and this one probably could, if the subject justified it. Much betterto deal with it by AfD by the community. This is the sort of article Afd is intended for. DGG (talk) 01:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment from deleting admin: This was tagged by another editor for speedy deletion under G11. I looked at the article and concurred that the article not only didn't assert the notability of the topic (it seems to be a term used by a notable professor in a non-notable book), but seemed to be promotional in that it consisted largely of quotes and links to Yochai Benkler-related material rather than an encyclopedic treatment of the topic. G11 is for promotional material which "would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." I think that this article would have needed such a fundamental rewrite; so while I'd lean toward calling it A7, I went with the G11 since it was tagged as such and I felt this was reasonable. That said, I don't have a problem with undeleting it and sending it to AfD for wider input if that's the consensus here. MastCell ^Talk 02:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • By the way, in general, if you think I erred on one of my speedy deletions, you can leave me a note on my talk page or send me an email - I'm generally willing to just undelete them and send them to AfD if there's a serious, good-faith objection like this. Of course, since we're here now, may as well get a few more outside opinions. MastCell ^Talk 03:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Well...to be honest...like I said, I know nothing about economic theory...I just straight up wasn't sure. Smashville 03:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
      • No problem - didn't mean to give you a hard time, just a suggestion. MastCell ^Talk 17:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• I'm not exactly sure that this was spam, all you would have to do in this case would be to wipe the external links off, and put in real sources. Thought it should be noted that the article as it was, only described a term in someone's book, which to me is wrong. If the term is not used outside of that very narrow realm (one book) its certainly not worth an encyclopaedia article. The page had no other information other then what that term was used for in that one book. Needless to say, that article was in fairly bad shape, if we leave this deleted, and someone is willing to work on it, there should be a standing offer to undelete this page to userspace, though I really doubt the content is useful. As it stands though, good delete by MastCell. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 13:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Suggestion Given the deleting admin's willingness to undelete expressed above , why not simply undelete and send to AfD as a self-revert? DGG (talk) 02:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • OK... will do. Feel free to comment at the AfD, once I get it up and running. MastCell ^Talk 02:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Dvar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I once created an article on a Russian band named Dvar. I'm not their fan but i just know how importent and notable they are on the Russian goth scene. The article was 5-lines and bad so it was nominated for deletion and deleted by concensus. Now i restored it and re-wrote it adding a history section, making a nice discography, trivia and style sections, added an infobox an offcourse, informatiom. But it was deleted by another administrator. I tryed to explain him on his talk page that this band is notable and that it is now better but he just won't listen. I offered him to restor it and then nomi nate for deletion and let the editors decide, but he refuses. Since it's hopeless with him as i see i hope another administrator could restore it and nominate for deletion to let the editors decide. M.V.E.i. 10:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

As a comment. I looked over the page as it was before my deletion, as compared to how it was before its previous (3rd) deletion, and only a tiny bit of information had been added. It basically looks the same as it did the first, second, and third times it was deleted, including its Afd. Jmlk17 11:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not true. The new version is much bigger, better and with more material. I dont get what's your problem to upload it and nominee it for deletion. I really think that you just try to play the boss. Let the Wikipediand decide on the new version. M.V.E.i. 13:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

M.V.E.i., I think that comment about just liking to play the boss is out of line. Personally, I think the band is notable and the deletion should be overturned. Send it to AfD if you'd like to get further input. I also think that M.V.E.i. owes Jmlk17 an apology for that comment. - Philippe | Talk 16:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• I suggest that M.V.E.i. just recreate this article with a more developed, informative lead. This group does appear to be notable, but the article (I'm assuming that was the latest one?) doesn't make it obvious to the typical English Wikipedian. — xDanielx ^T/_C 18:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• As the deleting admin, and after conversations with the editor, I have restored the article, and re-nominated in under an Afd. Jmlk17 22:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)