Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 November 24: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 04:26, 26 November 2021

< 2021 November 23

Deletion review archives: 2021 November

2021 November 25 >

24 November 2021

LiveWorkPlay

Apologies if I am not doing this right. As best as I can understand, there was a page that was deleted in 2018, and that is the only discussion that I can find. I started a completely new draft in 2021 (and as you will see, screwed up in various ways, because finally getting it into the right process as someone who works for the organization) but that is not relevant to the final product, which was appropriately edited by many senior editors, with extensive scrutiny, and then published by an administrator. And after that, not a page I was actively editing, other than perhaps an updated reference or two. It does not make sense that this page was suddenly deleted, having just undergone that extensive scrutiny. I don't think that a long story about it is appropriate here, but basically, I have come under attack recently, with (for example) a false allegation (dismissed) of sock puppetry. I am sad to say that this article was likely deleted. or arranged to be deleted, for this reason. I realize making such a case becomes rather complicated, and hopefully, unnecessary, since the evidence as related to the article itself should suffice - the article was published appropriately in 2021, with lots of input and scrutiny, and although I am sure it will be pointed out that I fumbled the start of it badly, in the end, this is just not relevant - what is relevant is the quality of the article (again, not finalized or approved by me) and the deletion of it without discussion, and I would certainly be interested in the rationale of why the other senior editors and administrators were correct to approve it, but now incorrect and thus there is some justification for deleting it. Thanks. Iamthekanadian (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I could have a temp-undelete (preferably including both the G4'd version and the AfD'd version), I'd be appreciative. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Close this request, which appears to be more a general complaint by a paid editor who thinks that they are being mistreated than an appeal. I see little need for a temp-undelete, but if there is one, I will comment on it. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if it was unclear, I tried to focus on the reality that the 2018 article has nothing to do with the 2021 article, and that the deletion of the 2021 article has nothing to do with the article itself. The paid editor reference is a red herring - I didn't understand about COI (which I declared as soon as I was made aware) and the issue of working for a charity when you start an article about it (paid editor label), but after sorting all that out, the article went through the proper process with a ton of scrutiny, and so this is not a "general complaint" about my being mistreated, it is a fact-based appeal where my status as someone who works for the charity is irrelevant (save for it being a handy distraction from what actually occurred). I followed all of the directives and experienced senior editors and administrators took the lead, so it is really their work that was deleted, or at least, their approvals of the cumulative effort that were suddenly overridden and deleted. I would add that I am a hardworking human being who does not make a living posting articles on Wikipedia, and I hope it is not seen as insignificant that article deletion was weaponized, just because you see me as a "paid editor." I have not touched that original article and moved on to other things, trying to be a contributor here like everyone else. Iamthekanadian (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The appeal does at least suggest that the article is "completely new", which would render G4 inapplicable. I also note that one admin has characterized the two versions of this article as having "entirely different text, with almost zero overlap in sources used", so there is a legitimate question about whether the deletion was appropriate. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to see how it compares. If it's different, we need to identify the G4 as wrong, and if G5 is what it should have been, then so be it. Jclemens (talk) 03:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. I have reviewed the version of the article as deleted in 2018 and the version most recently deleted per CSD:G4, and they are substantially different. As such, CSD:G4 does not apply and the deletion process has not been properly followed. I cannot immediately see any other CSD that might be applicable, but there is not of course any bar to someone acting accordingly should they find one. Stifle (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time, it is really encouraging that this process followed the facts. I see that it is the norm to dismiss claims of "mistreatment" (I totally get it, less skilled and experienced Wikipedians like myself do ham-handed things all the time, and take offense when people who know what their doing try to correct their errors and get a bunch of childish indignation in return for their efforts) but it wasn't a mistake that this particular article experienced sudden deletion, and I think that's a pretty unfortunate abuse of power which is part of an ongoing pattern directly connected to the false sock puppet accusation and other preceding incidents. I have done nothing wrong since my initial screwups when I first opened an account - as in, once I declared everything that needed declaring and the process played out, I have learned and moved on and there's not one factual issue with any articles or edits I've contributed. I just want to be in this community in peace, not being stalked with everything I do and processes used as punishment. You can choose to believe this was some sort of accident, but seems obvious it was not. All that said, I do appreciate that the process worked - I was told by an admin "don't hold your breath" but all of you here resolved it very quickly, and I am grateful for that, it means a lot, not because of the article, but because the facts actually mattered. Iamthekanadian (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I too would like a temp undelete if possible. Given's Stifle's comments, I think this is headed toward an overturn. Hobit (talk) 18:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: temporarily undeleted for DRV. Daniel (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Being an admin who patrols the many pages that are tagged for speedy deletion every day, I gave this page a scan and compared it to the version deleted through the AFD but I did not carefully review the change in sources. They are much improved from the last version. In hindsight, I probably would have advised the editor who tagged the article to nominate it again at AFD rather than tagging it for CSD. With even more hindsight, I should have questioned the page tagger, an IP editor from Australia with no other edits, but I've found that sometimes regular editors log out to tag pages for deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I'd very likely be a delete !voter at AfD, but this is clearly not a G4. SportingFlyer T·C 22:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn – G4 is not applicable unless the new version is "substantially identical" to the previously deleted version, and that clearly isn't the case here: there's really no overlap whatsoever between the two versions, either with respect to the content or with respect to the references. Any notability concerns can be worked out at AfD. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:54, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G4 and deal with possibly undisclosed paid editing, block evasion, or other conduct issues with conduct tools, not content tools. Jclemens (talk) 03:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, there is no undisclosed paid editing, block evasion, or anything else (not by me - but definitely the deletion and some associated attacks were done in violation of many Wikipedia principles). I did not understand some of these issues when I first joined, but I disclosed COI almost immediately, my status as someone who works for the charity (and put up the little paid editor badge once I understood the policy), and took the advice of senior editors and administrators to back off from the article which I did not edit after October (and it was edited and published through the appropriate process by others). At some point continuously referencing errors I made as a new user becomes unacceptable, right? Thanks for your working through this. As you have seen, it is a rather innocuous article - no one is going to become rich or famous from it. Iamthekanadian (talk) 04:25, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international goals scored by Harry Kane

After scoring 7 goals during the latest international window, Kane is now well within striking distance of Wayne Rooney to become England's top international goalscorer. Following some discussion at the association football WikiProject, it seems that restoring the article to DRAFT status is now preferred. The reason is because we now feel the article should be maintained and updated so it can be published once Kane draws even with or passes Rooney, thus meeting the consensus at WP:FOOTY regarding notability of lists of international goals. The article title currently redirects to Harry Kane#International. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn the 2021 AfD to redirect per WP:ATD. This is one of those times where an admin should feel absolutely free to ignore numerical consensus and do the policy-based thing. Having said that, I see no issue with restoring the article to DRAFT either, but deleting an article that should have been redirected was a lapse in administrator judgment in the first place. Jclemens (talk) 19:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Adhering to consensus and deleting the article isn't a policy-based decision? ✗plicit 00:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's correct. Not one single delete !voter articulated why deletion was to be preferred over the obvious redirect. While there may well have been consensus that the article should not exist as a standalone--although the delete !votes, as a whole, sucked--administrators are supposed to follow policy, not count noses. Jclemens (talk) 03:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - and I'll note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international goals scored by Zinedine Zidane was just NAC'ed in such a manner. Jclemens (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's almost as if the debate resulted in a consensus to merge! ✗plicit 00:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Just like the consensus of this discussion was actually to merge or redirect, once one discarded non-policy-based deletion votes. Jclemens (talk) 04:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Giant Snowman 19:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, we're notifying wikiprojects of DRV discussions? Is this new or am I just noticing now? Jclemens (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - This has always been done for WikiProject Football - see also ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#List of international goals scored by Harry Kane. GiantSnowman 21:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yowzee wow! That practice has clarified and explained an awful lot of things I haven't understood about football-related deletion decisions. A WikiProject with its own inbuilt ARS!—S Marshall T/C 09:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wow, perhaps one of the most bad-faith comments I have ever seen on Wikipedia! It's nothing of the sort, it's purely a list of discussions people might wish to join in, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Nominations for deletion and page moves - just an organised version of Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Article alerts. This sort of deletion sorting is common and widespread - cricket has similar at WP:CRIC#AFD, NFL at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League#Article Alerts etc. Oh and feel free to review the deletion archive we maintain to see all the articles that have deleted (or kept, or merged0... Giant Snowman 11:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse original decision as being sound, but given that the situation has moved on since then, I agree that we should now overturn and move to draft. Giant Snowman 19:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. Stifle (talk) 15:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and move to draft space I always wanted to keep the article originally. Least now we have a footing to work with in draft space when needed. Govvy (talk) 16:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Klocks Crossing, Ohio

I believe the closer did not sufficiently critique the "Keep" votes in this discussion. The relevant guideline is WP:GEOLAND which requires "populated places without legal recognition" to meet GNG, but we have editors contradicting the guideline and arguing that being mentioned in obituaries, society pages or simply having any population at all is sufficient to establish notability. Please note that the current sources in the article are GNIS (which doesn't contribute to notability) and a local history book which describes Klock's Crossing as a whistle stop that once had a charcoal burning operation. –dlthewave ☎ 16:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. WP:GEOLAND is a guideline and the consensus in the AfD doesn't contravene anything of such importance (a policy such as WP:NOT) that !votes which seemingly bypassed it would need to be discounted. Keep !votes should have been better informed by all the relevant conventions. Delete !votes should have had a more thorough rationale like the one you've offered here. Closer sees discussion, assesses it and closes. AfD is not an educational institution. Something to nominate again in the future. Nothing to do here now. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Couldn't have been closed any other way. Some history or institutional memory on how notability guidelines in this area have evolved over time might be instructive here; this would have been a speedy keep at some points in the past. Jclemens (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn yes GEOLAND is a guideline, but nobody tried to argue that the subject meets GEOLAND, so that isn't relevant. GEOLAND only grants near-automatic notability to legally recognised populated places, and there isn't any evidence that this was ever legally recognised. Other types of populated places have to meet the GNG. Two participants tried to argue that it's notable as a populated place anyway, but that view doesn't have any basis in any notability guideline. Nor are there any sources to back up that view: the sources cited in the AfD about people being from there or things happening there don't establish that it was a populated place without engaging in original research. The article doesn't claim it was ever a populated place. Two participants argued that it was notable because of the sources, however the sources cited in the discussion are clearly trivial mentions which don't constitute significant coverage as the GNG puts it. Hut 8.5 18:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse While a closer can discount comments that are not based on policy, or fail to address questions about sourcing, I do not think it is appropriate for the closer to search beyond the arguments made in the discussion (that is, it is not an expectation of the closer to review the sources presented in the discussion and determine if they are substantive or trivial mentions). In this case, all of the keep voters asserted that there were sufficient sources to meet WP:GNG. One of the delete comments questioned whether the sourcing provided was trivial, but two subsequent participants disagreed. With most participants suggesting the sourcing was sufficient, and a numerical majority in favor of keep, a keep close is within the closer's discretion. --Enos733 (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as the right close by the closer. It isn't for DRV to decide whether the community was right or wrong about notability. I see no evidence of notability, but I do see a properly closed AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse clearly the right close and well within the GEOLAND policy - whether anyone argued that policy in the AfD is irrelevant. SportingFlyer T·C 14:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse own deletion, as per the consensus of the discussion. As Enos733 points out, as closer I am bound to review the discussion and the arguments made in the discussion, but not to independently research the topic. I am entitled to discard !votes which do not conform to Wikipedia policy, but GEOLAND is not a policy, it is a guideline; guidelines are subject to interpretation by local consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
endorse pretty clearly the only way it could be closed given the discussion and our guidelines. Hobit (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 *'''Overturn''' – G4 is not applicable unless the new version is "substantially identical" to the previously deleted version, and that clearly isn't the case here: there's really no overlap whatsoever between the two versions, either with respect to the content or with respect to the references. Any notability concerns can be worked out at AfD. [[User:Extraordinary Writ|Extraordinary Writ]] ([[User talk:Extraordinary Writ|talk]]) 03:54, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 *'''Overturn G4''' and deal with possibly undisclosed paid editing, block evasion, or other conduct issues with conduct tools, not content tools. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 03:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
+:: Just for the record, there is no undisclosed paid editing, block evasion, or anything else (not by me - but definitely the deletion and some associated attacks were done in violation of many Wikipedia principles). I did not understand some of these issues when I first joined, but I disclosed COI almost immediately, my status as someone who works for the charity (and put up the little paid editor badge once I understood the policy), and took the advice of senior editors and administrators to back off from the article which I did not edit after October (and it was edited and published through the appropriate process by others). At some point continuously referencing errors I made as a new user becomes unacceptable, right? Thanks for your working through this. As you have seen, it is a rather innocuous article - no one is going to become rich or famous from it. [[User:Iamthekanadian|Iamthekanadian]] ([[User talk:Iamthekanadian|talk]]) 04:25, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 ====[[:List of international goals scored by Harry Kane]]====