User talk:Spicy
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
User:Sjp10 10
[edit]Hi, in reply to your revert on User:Sjp10 10, I tagged it for speedy deletion because it's an exact copy of the article skeuomorph, not a work in progress. Thanks. Ternera (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's not an exact copy - the userpage contains several sections that aren't currently in the article. Spicy (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll remember to check that more carefully in the future. Can I ask what you are using to see the differences between their user page and the article? Ternera (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Er, I just looked at it. I wouldn't worry too much about people copying articles to their user page, though. They might be doing that because they want to work on the article in the future. There is plenty of actually bad stuff in userspace, it's unproductive and bitey to spend time policing borderline cases. Spicy (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll remember to check that more carefully in the future. Can I ask what you are using to see the differences between their user page and the article? Ternera (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
G4 deletion of a draft based on an AfD
[edit]Hello Spicy,
Kindly reverse your deletion logged in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=166898395
It was incorrect for you to G4-delete this draft on the grounds that the article on the same topic was deleted via AfD. This is because a creation of a draft is not generally a recreation of an article, and the reasons for which the deletion was performed under consensus in this particular AfD (solely for the ordinary lack of notability) only extend to article space and drafts are neutral to those reasons (drafts are not deleted solely because the topic lacks notability). It would have required a deletion via MfD to G4 delete the draft.
Whether the contents were sufficiently identical is not important, considering the above. —Alalch E. 15:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Dclemens1971: Hello. I'm noting that the deletion was performed after you G4-tagged the page, so I feel it would be good if you were to read this discussion as well. Cheers —Alalch E. 15:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, I nominated it. Drafts are not excluded for deletion under WP:G4. I'm not an admin, so I can't see whether the draft would be considered "substantially identical," but the subject was determined to be non-notable at an AfD just a few months ago. It seems pointless to have to waste the community's time with another AfD so soon, but I guess we'll have to if it's not "substantially identical." (Again, I can't see if it is because I don't have the old version visible to me.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't say drafts are excluded for deletion under G4. I said that the creation of this specific draft was not a sufficiently identical recreation of the specific article that was deleted per this specific AfD because, even though the pages deal with the same subject matter, they are pages in different namespaces, to which namespaces different deletion reasons apply, and the reasons to delete this article in the concrete case are not generally reasons to delete a draft. Hopefully Spicy will reverse the deletion. If not, I will start a deletion review. —Alalch E. 15:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, I nominated it. Drafts are not excluded for deletion under WP:G4. I'm not an admin, so I can't see whether the draft would be considered "substantially identical," but the subject was determined to be non-notable at an AfD just a few months ago. It seems pointless to have to waste the community's time with another AfD so soon, but I guess we'll have to if it's not "substantially identical." (Again, I can't see if it is because I don't have the old version visible to me.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)