Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 November 30: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 02:01, 1 December 2015

< 2015 November 29

Deletion review archives: 2015 November

2015 December 1 >

30 November 2015

Skiddle

Article has been cleaned up, rewritten. I don't think this revised page content was reviewed despite calls for this to happen. I've spoken to the editor who deleted it and he's restored it to here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lancshero/Skiddle - please can this be reviewed and the page be restored? Happy to see another vote on this new content if needed - but seems like a waste of time asking for someone to work on it only for it then to be deleted. Thanks Lancshero (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was only deleted yesterday, then userfied, then you want it restored all in one day. Go away and give the deleting admin a chance to respond. This listing at DRV is premature. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright (1821–1863)

Basis solely on the arguments provided in the discussion the closed should be no other than no consensus. Source provided by Dual Freq suggest notability, this maybe an administrative supervote. If considering the votes is to 3 in favor of keep, 1 merge and 3 delete including the nominator, a clear lack of consensus. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 09:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Valoem I'm curious how you came to this AFD. You didn't vote in the discussion, you haven't discussed this with me and I reversed one of your NAC AFDs yesterday - and you were really butthurt about it and ran to Cunard looking for support that I was unfair and evil. I can't help thinking that the only way you could have come to this was by going through my contributions - presumably in the hope of finding something to complain about in revenge for my undoing your NAC. I'd be very interested in your explanation. Revenge DRV nominations are not classy.... Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Also noting you did not notify me of this nomination as DRV guidance requires. So not classy... Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy endorse on behavioural grounds. The scope of legitimate DRVs is limited, and does not include revenge. Nominator has a history of inappropriate non-admin AfD closes; note also passive-aggressive whining at User_talk:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_)#Wikipedia:Deletion_review.2FLog.2F2015_November_30. Reyk _YO! 10:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the close itself, I see that it was relisted twice. Every editor who commented after the first relist agreed that the article should not remain in mainspace. I think it's fair to close the AfD along those lines. Reyk _YO! 14:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is massive inappropriate accusation from the both of you Reyk, please highlight some inappropriate NACs in my history, you have every right to question my closures, however all closure I have dealt with you in the past have come to the same conclusion therefore my judgement is sound. I gave a perfectly solid rationale in my reason for DRV by providing sources, discussion reasons and vote counting. Upon reviewing this article here ACT Alberta I see neither participation nor editing of the article in question, so I too am curious as to how you came to it. And in answer to your question I came across it by skimming through AfD. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 10:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Rubbish... You are even echoing RANs argument on my talkpage in your nomination so you can only have come to this from stalking my contributions. I hate to assume bad faith but there has to be a limit. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Valoem On that subject - you went to RAN's page to notify him of the DRV and made the following comment unsurprising when you considered the administrator.. How can you honestly say there was no animus in your nomination after that? Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have a history of closing against consensus and have been questioned numerous times. Am I wrong to say that? Valoem ^talk ^contrib 11:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are indeed wrong. My record in closing is fine bearing in mind that I generally close out the last remaining AFDs that no-one else wants to deal with but don't let facts get in the way of fancy and assuming bad faith. The only person here you are making look bad is yourself but feel to carry on making yourself look ignorant. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

??? I apologize for not notifying you that was an error on my end. I saw that you were involved in the DRV below and assume you would see this. If you are trying to goad me, it is not going to work, and can be seen as poor form. If you do not believe my reasons than fine so be it, but I remain curious as to how you came to ACT Alberta. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 11:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice my closing out the AFD backlog yesterday? Interesting that you choose not to respond to evidence I provided of your making the nomination while showing clear animus against me. tacit acceptance anyone? Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer editors to observe the close in question instead of the drama involved. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 11:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn There was no consensus to delete and the closing statement was perfunctory, not providing any reason for the deviation. The guidance of WP:DGFA was not followed, "respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants ... When in doubt, don't delete." Andrew D. (talk) 12:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn No consensus for deletion. Closed with a supervote. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please can an uninvolved admin engage with Valoem concerning his use of this discussion as a platform to make personal attacks against me? Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the personal attacks? I just read the thread twice looking for them so I could warn him. You admit you close the controversial AFDs, and he thinks you add in a supervote when you close them, I also think the same thing. You tend to shift no-consensus closes into deletes by discounting a few keep views, instead of acting dispassionately. He is not stalking you, he is doing the same thing I am doing, when I see a bad close, I look to see if there have been other bad closes by the same person. That isn't stalking, it is best practices. When you see someone make a spelling or grammatical error, you check a few of the past edits to see if they made the same mistakes elsewhere. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With respect Richard this comment was not aimed at you... especially as you followed it with another unevidenced attack on my integrity. Please don't. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You word everything with such drama, "feel [free] to carry on making yourself look ignorant" and "clear animus against me" and "personal attacks" and "unevidenced attack on my integrity", if you cannot take legitimate focused criticism of your actions, you are on the wrong website. If all closes were perfect, we would not need the DRV process. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz you have made so many attacks me in the past saying things such as "you should be more experienced" despite this, all my closes and DRVs have favored me so I've simply dropped the issue. Now here anyone can it is in fact you who is making the personal attacks with comments such as "you were really butthurt about it and ran to Cunard looking for support that I was unfair and evil" all this could boomerang if you pursue it any further. Sometimes the grasshopper lies heavy, so they say. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 19:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK folks, can we get a temp. undelete of the article? IMO the !vote was NC, but if there weren't any meaningful sources (as some delete !votes indicated) it may be that delete was the right outcome. But I can't tell from here. Also, I've got opinions on everyone's behavior, but I don't think unsolicited advice is going to be helpful. If you ask (on my talk page or e-mail) I'll be happy to give my 2 cents. Hobit (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My view on this may be skewed in Spartaz' favour by the fact that I'm currently incredibly grateful to him for his assistance with an unrelated matter, so I won't put a word in bold on here. But... as so often at DRV there's a lot going on behind the scenes. From the histories, I believe that on 5th November, User:Clarityfiend read our article on Jonathan M. Wainwright (general) and seems to have been moved to look deeper. He created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Powell Page Wainwright, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright (1849–1870), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright (1821–1863). Clarityfiend is typically thorough and thoughtful, and I'm confident that he inspected, but decided not to AfD, Richard Wainwright (American Civil War naval officer), Richard Wainwright (Spanish–American War naval officer), and Richard Wainwright (Medal of Honor). This family has clearly distinguished itself by its service in the US military! It also, clearly, has a prolific and determined biographer.
The three AfDs that Clarityfiend created that day all led to their respective articles being deleted, after a variable number of relistings in each case. (Irritatingly both the deleting sysops were among our primary DRV closers which makes these discussions harder to review.) At first glance, reading the discussion cold, I was with Hobit that this felt more like a "no consensus" outcome to me. But when I make a side-by-side comparison of the three subject AfDs in context, I find myself more in agreement with Spartaz. When closing against the snout-count I normally prefer a more detailed closing statement than this, but are we really comfortable saying that outcome wasn't within discretion?—S Marshall T/C 19:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia entries for the subject are available, the argument was made that existing reference was insufficient without doing the simplest Google search to look for more. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the Johnathan Mayhew Wainwrights I mentioned above is discussed in that book, Richard? The one we still have an article on, perhaps?—S Marshall T/C 21:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use your combo of brain and eyes to read the article, and then you tell me. It is an awesome combo when used. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can read our article on Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright, our article on Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright and our article on Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright. For the moment I can also read our article on Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright because Spartaz has temporarily undeleted it, but I can't read our article on Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright because that's still deleted at the moment. My question is which of these people are discussed in the books you linked? (My other question is why nobody ever bought the Wainwright family a baby names book.)—S Marshall T/C 23:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The person under discussion is "Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright (1821–1863)" and he was born in 1821 and he died in 1863 according to the title of the article. Read the biography in the link I posted and see if he was born in the same year. Then you can double check to see if he died in the same year. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I genuinely can't, Richard. Google snippet view isn't showing me anything intelligible at all, certainly nothing as useful as a date of birth. I presume what's on your screen is somehow different from what's on mine. Perhaps the snippet view varies between countries?—S Marshall T/C 01:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The disagreement in the discussion is not reflected in the too brief closing statement. The closer should provide more information in the close to explain why it was closed that way. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vu Digital

Discussion with closing admin:

Extended content

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vu Digital (2nd nomination), would you undelete Vu Digital and redirect it to C Spire Wireless, so I can do a selective merge of its content to its parent company, C Spire Wireless? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly can't see how I could do that without ignoring the actual consensus of the discussion which was a slam dunk delete. I'd feel uncomfortable with a blatent supervote like that. No objection to your creating a redirect as an editorial decision but there is no consensus for a merge. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to copy and paste several sentences from the deleted article along with their sources into the parent company's article C Spire Wireless. It would be a violation of Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Attribution is required for copyright if I do that while the article's history deleted.
"Delete" participant DreamGuy wrote that although he didn't want the entire article to be merged, "It should be mentioned more there, but it's up to the maintainers of that page how much to do so." I will merge only a few sentences to the article. I don't see how undeleting the history for me to make a selective merge would violate the AfD's consensus that the subject shouldn't have a standalone article. Cunard (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was a well attended afd where the vast majority of the voters said to delete. i have to close by the consensus and there is no policy or practise to justify putting your two votes ahead. I can only redirect/smerge by ugnoring the consensus and I can't do that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 19#Westshore Town Centre:

The only benefit of keeping the edit history deleted that I can see would be to prevent users from undoing the redirect and restoring the deleted content. But this is easily remedied by reverting the restoration and fully protecting the redirect.
A benefit of restoring the article's history would be to allow non-admins to see what the encyclopedia once said about the subject.
Using the deleted content for a merge is not the only benefit. Another example is that in the future if sources surface that demonstrate notability, the deleted content can be easily reviewed. Without needing to ask an admin, a non-admin could determine whether the deleted content could be used as the basis of a newly recreated article with the new sources. Deletion would hinder this.
In sum, the benefits of restoring the deleted content outweigh the negligible negatives, so the article's history should be restored under the redirect.

Restore the article's history under a redirect to C Spire Wireless so I can do a selective merge of a few sentences and their sources.

Cunard (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent DRVs about restoring article histories under redirects: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 19#Westshore Town Centre, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 August 28#Match World Cup annual event articles, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 28#VideoPad, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 November 25#Windows Police Pro, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 21#Johnny Prill, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 June 8#List of wrestlers in WWE video games, and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 November 28#Annie Butler.
See also the comments and links at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archives/2015/January#History undeletion underneath redirect.
Cunard (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse "delete" closing. For over a year now, Cunard has been advancing a novel interpretation of preserving "article history" by redirecting in lieu of deletion whenever possible. It is past time to recognize that this is a novel interpretation with no actual basis in the applicable policies and guidelines, including without limitation WP:Deletion policy and WP:Editing policy. Often cited as a basis for this interpretation are WP:ATD (in reality, part of WP:Deletion policy) and WP:PRESERVE (part of WP:Editing policy); neither WP:ATD nor WP:PRESERVE actually mention the words "article history," and it is reasonably clear these policies did not perceive the preservation of "article content" as the equivalent of "article history". This line of thought has now run its logical course, and Cunard and others are arguing for a non-existent policy. If Cunard wants to implement a new content preservation policy -- one that sets forth circumstances and guidance for the preservation of article history -- it is far past the time for proponents of such changes to seek the consensus of the wider community by means of an RfC, rather than trying to jaw-jaw DRV participants into creating such a de facto policy in contravention of the actual policies on point which do not even so much as mention "article history" in the context of preserving content. Do the right thing, start that RfC, and seek the consensus of the community. Until then, it's time to oppose this obvious over-reach when it is put forward as a rationale for overturning the clear consensus of AfD participants (as quite properly interpreted by closing administrators) by means of DRVs such as this one. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard's been doing that for one heck of a lot more than a year, and redirecting in preference to deletion isn't a "novel interpretation", it's policy.
I'm conflicted. On the one hand, Spartaz's point is easily understood ---- there really was a consensus to delete, and what's the purpose of deleting material if it's restored on request? That makes our procedures seem pretty pointless. But on the other hand, Cunard's point is also easily understood ---- he wants to improve C Spire Wireless, and I approve of that because that content desperately needs help. Why should Cunard have to go back to the drawing board when there's material in a deleted history he can use? To make him start from scratch is to prioritise procedures over content, and we have policies that say content takes priority over procedure.
The AfD is no help. I can't disagree with Spartaz' close: there really was a consensus to delete there, although it wasn't a slam dunk. I can't see the deleted material but from reading the AfD, some experienced editors whose judgment I trust were unimpressed with it. I can see from the AfD that Cunard has already done the work of finding the sources and I wonder to what extent he needs that old deleted content to work from?
All in all I want to look for a third way here and I wonder whether it would be possible to userfy or email the material to Cunard? That way Cunard could cut and paste material into the article with an edit summary that preserves attribution, but we're respecting the consensus to delete by not restoring the contested article to the mainspace.—S Marshall T/C 02:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the Google cache of the article. I would like to copy and paste several sentences in Vu Digital to C Spire Wireless. It would take fewer than five minutes, and I would do it now if I could be compliant with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Attribution is required for copyright.
I don't think a selective merge would be against the AfD's consensus. For example, DreamGuy wrote: "It should be mentioned more there, but it's up to the maintainers of that page how much to do so. A merge would have a lot of useless info." I can comply with his position by mentioning Vu Digital "more there" (cutting and pasting those sentences) but not merging "useless info" (the entire article).
Cunard (talk) 02:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, you do not need anyone to provide a copy for you. There is no reason for this DRV. Nada. If you wanted to merge content from the deleted article, perhaps you should have participated in the AfD. Inventing an ex post facto rationale for overturning a properly decided AfD is sophistry. If you're genuinely concerned about our attribution and licensing policies, you may also paraphrase the desired content you believe is noteworthy. FYI, standard format citations are not generally considered creative content. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article history is needed to be compliant with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Attribution is required for copyright. The natural place for the article history of a merged article is at its original title. Moving it to userspace eventually will be non-compliant with WP:UP#COPIES.
If you're genuinely concerned about our you may also paraphrase the desired content you believe is noteworthy. – there is no reason to force editors to waste time paraphrasing material that already has been written. This is a poor reason to support deletion of the article's history.
If you wanted to merge content from the deleted article, perhaps you should have participated in the AfD. – I did participate in the AfD.
Cunard (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but using your logic, every properly decided "delete" AfD could be overturned. Accept this was properly decided, and use the several available solutions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@S Marshall: If Cunard personally wants to improve the related article, then he -- like any other editor -- may request a copy of the deleted article from any administrator. That's the simplest route forward. We do not overturn AfD consensus "delete" decisions, properly interpreted by the closing administrator, in order to preserve article history that someone may use in the future. Delete means "delete," not "delete, but we really know delete means redirect to preserve the history of a non-notable subject". And, yes, the interpretation of WP:Editing policy and WP:Deletion policy to overturn properly decided AfD "delete" outcomes is novel. Neither of those policies even so much as mentions "article history" in the context of preserving content. If that's the interpretation you desire, then prepare your RfC for community approval. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised and rather amused to see someone who's new here lecture me, Smokeyjoe and Cunard on what decisions DRV does and does not make. Because you are new, it's understandable that you're not aware of the occasions on which we have restored article histories to preserve attribution. It is in fact a relatively common outcome. We do not need an RFC to know that we have to observe the terms of use that are linked from the bottom of every page.—S Marshall T/C 08:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm surprised and rather amused to see someone who's new here lecture me." I could respond in a similarly ad hominem manner, S Marshall, but instead I will point out that capturing a review panel with four or five reliable !votes and advocating outcomes that are not supported by a literal reading of existing policies and guidelines is nothing to lord over perceived "newbies." It's pretty clear based on comments in this and other recent DRVs involving the restoration of article history under redirects that you would be better informed and Wikipedia better served by reviewing the applicable policies:

WP:Editing policy (with special attention to the fact "article history" is not mentioned in the context of "preserving content");
WP:Deletion policy (ditto);
WP:Deletion review (with particular attention to the scope of DRV review);
WP:Protection policy (no basis for indefinite full protection of redirects); and
WP:Copying within Wikipedia (proper paraphrasing of existing Wikipedia content does not require attribution).

Likewise, I am "surprised," but I am not at all "amused" by the misrepresentations of these fundamental policies in these discussions. I suggest that you save your condescension and start to review the weaknesses in the "save the article history arguments" presented. Apparently your assumptions (and those of other participants) have gone unchallenged by anyone who has actually read the applicable policies. As for being a newbie, I've been participating in AfDs and TfDs for six years, as well as copyright and attribution discussion, and I recognize when people have not read the actual policies they cite for support. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A true lawyer! Do delete history because it is not mentioned in WP:Editing policy and WP:Deletion review. Don't do any alternatives because they are not mentioned in WP:Protection policy. You do see your flawed logic ... right? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no flawed logic, Richard, and your taunts are not becoming to a 56-year-old adult. "Delete and redirect" has been a perfectly valid !vote and AfD outcome for all of my six and a half years editing Wikipedia. The place to argue for the alternatives you seek was in the AfD; you don't get to overturn a valid AfD consensus because you don't like it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's definitely not okay is to delete the history and then re-use the content. See WP:RUD. The real expert on this area is User:Flatscan, who sadly no longer edits, but he gave us a lot of wisdom on this point historically and looking at his contribution history will uncloak quite a lot of subtle thought about attribution in relation to deleted content. I also think it's plausible that in relation to close paraphrasing of deleted material, there's a gulf between behaviour that's technically within the rules, and behaviour that's up to the expected standards we enforce at DRV. This part of the encyclopaedia does have standards, and custom and practice, that's not written down and has to be learned through experience. It's also not particularly constrained; deletion review is the "highest court", to use a decidedly inappropriate metaphor, and so it has wide latitude to come to decisions which improve the encyclopaedia's deletion processes. Generally, I would repeat my suggestion to Dirtlawyer1 that for his first little while at Deletion Review it would be appropriate to use a little less of the imperative and the emphatic declarative, and a little more of the interrogative, when speaking to those with a lot of experience here.—S Marshall T/C 02:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, but undelete history to allow a selective merge, protect the title to enforce the decision to delete. The undeletion of the history is good practice for proper WP:Copyright compliance. Wikipedia internally should definitely err on the side of overcompliance if it wants any credibility in asking downstream users to respect its copyrights. The AfD was found to have a consensus for deletion, as a matter of Wikipedia-notability, but there was inadequate consideration of reuse of some sourced material elsewhere. Given that Cunard has read the deleted article, he is influenced by it, and so its authors require attribution should cunard add anything from it to another article. Dirtlawyer1's suggestion of obtaining a copy of the deleted article and proceeding without ongoing attribution violates WP:Copyrights, both the spirit and the letter. While attribution workarounds are possible, such as a null edit pointing to a talk page section naming the authors or reused deleted content, it is not reasonable to expect downstream users to honour that, downstream users will reasonably rely on the author list provided by the "Download as PDF" tool. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: Please review the circumstances under which indefinite full page protection is available per WP:FPP. My reading of our page protection policy is that full page protection is not available for redirects, let alone indefinite full page protection. "Delete" means "delete," not "selective merge, with a redirect and restoration of article history under the redirect". It is axiomatic that every merge is a selective merge, and a "merge" outcome was considered during the AfD and rejected by the AfD consensus in favor of a "delete" outcome. It is not DRV's remit to overturn a properly decided consensus outcome; that's no different than an administrator "super vote" disregarding the consensus in closing the AfD. In the absence of an AfD consensus "merge" closing, the same net result may be achieved by obtaining a copy (or a copy of selected sections of the deleted article) and re-writing or paraphrasing any substantive content to be included in the target article. Standard format citations are generally not considered creative content and may be recycled without change. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With the decreasing number of active editors, I suspect that administrative controls, such as page protection on redirects that are the made as the result of a formal consensus discussion, will need to become routine. WP:FPP will need updating. Old policy need not be a future straightjacket. I submit that a consensus found at AfD, or DRV, or in any formal well-participated discussion, need not feel bound by the wording of WP:FPP where the intention of WP:FPP was to discourage pre-emptive unilateral protection. As the consensus was that the article should not exist, and if it is felt that the article should never exist, then it is appropriate to protect the title.

You write: "merge" outcome was considered during the AfD and rejected by the AfD consensus in favor of a "delete" outcome.

I don't see that. Can you check again? I see no opposition to the merge suggestion. Maybe DreamGuys "A merge would have a lot of useless info", but I don't agree that there was a rejection of merge. The Delete !voters seemed to be looking at a keep/delete dichotomy.

At DRV, we may consider that a certain fine question was not well considered. We could send it back for discussion, but if fine question is trivial DRV participants may address it directly. Further, the usual limits to freedom of outcome opined here can be considerably broadened, noting a long history and heightened friction between Cunard and Spartaz. I note that this friction is plain to see, without suggesting myself that either is at fault. I doubt that they would drink together in the real world.

It is true that the references are not creative content, and Cunard may take the references and re-create content. It may be erring on the side of compliance to give attribution for content in the article that may be preserved through Cunard's reworking, but I believe that Wikipedia should go to lengths to demonstrate excellent attention to copyright compliance. I also note that there is no harm in keeping material in the history, if we can assume that it will stay there. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: FYI, I have been quite active in dealing with copyright material and enforcing the Wikipedia attribution guidelines for article-to-article copying of text within Wikipedia. Before you comment further, I strongly urge you to read WP:Copying within Wikipedia, which governs copying text from one Wikipedia article to another, and when attribution is required either in the article edit history or the article talk page. WP:COPYRIGHTS actually has little to say about copy-paste from one article to another.

I would also suggest that you re-read the DRV instructions on the WP:DRV page, your comments above suggest a great deal more latitude in what DRV should address than what you will find on that page. In particular, I suggest you take note of "Deletion Review should not be used . . . to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests)." In short, DRV is the wrong forum for Cunard's request, and this DRV discussion is an obvious attempt to circumvent the foregoing guideline. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it is OK to reuse deleted content in another article, then undelete, keep that content available behind the redirect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But why, Joe? The simplest, most time efficient solution is for Cunard to copy the references and the two or three sentences of substantive content he wishes to incorporate into the related article, and then re-write the two or three sentences he wishes to transfer. Easy-peasy, simple as pie. No redirect needed, no invalid full page protection for the redirect, no copyright problem, no Wikipedia attribution required, no overturning a perfectly valid consensus AfD close, and no more precedents for a very sketchy interpretation of WP:PRESERVE. One editor (Cunard) can implement everything required -- no DRV, no administrator to undelete, restore and page protect -- and it could have been done in less time than it took to file this DRV. Honestly, common sense has failed Cunard, here, because he is pursuing a completely unnecessary WP:POINT when the easiest, most time-efficient solution is completely within his own control. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

De minimis non curat lex -- "the law does not concern itself with trifles", and neither should DRV. As noted above, Cunard has it within his own power to accomplish his stated purpose without the necessity of this DRV or the assistance of any other editor. Why are we here? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you wandered in here attempting to wikilawyer? I am not persuaded.

There was a consensus that there should not be a standalone article, but the discussion did not adequately consider redirection vs deletion. A case here is made for redirection, and also that the deleted material is suitable for inclusion elsewhere. If there is no compelling reason for deletion of the material, then undeletion and conversion to redirect is appropriate.

While you may be correct that Cunard has gone to some length to make a point when he could have achieve a similar outcome another way, it does not change the fact that his point is correct.

Either restore the history and redirect or relist for consideration of whether some material is suitable for inclusion in other articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Several of us are attempting to "wikilawyer" a non-existent policy into existence, but I am not among them, Joe. And you failed to answer my simple question, to wit:

Why did Cunard need to file this DRV when he could have simply copied the references and rephrased the two or three sentences of content he wants to transfer to the related article?

Cunard could have accomplished his stated purpose in less time than it took to file this DRV, and you know it. There is absolutely no valid reason to preserve the article history of the deleted article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are playing with words. "need" is an extreme word. None of us "need" do anything. Also, it is highly tangential. He has done it, and he is right. Perhaps he is trying to make a point to steer the project into more ideal practices, which definitely include only deleting content when there is good reason to do so. There was no good reason in this case. The request to undelete is reasonable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation, Sources provided show notability have been established and a AfD may be required. I for one also find it easier to work and improve articles with a userfied version intact. To denied Cunard a userfied version is unbecoming. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 09:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What? I haven't refused to userfy this. Cunard wants the article restored in mainspace - please check your facts before making unfounded accusations.. Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Restore history to allow merging and preserving copyright we must legally attribute material to the authors if some material is going to be merged. There is never a good reason to delete a history when converting into a redirect unless it is a copyright violation or slanderous in a BLP. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless of course the consensus of the discussion is to delete. Ignoring that would be the real supervote. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? This is a post-facto restoration, I have not mentioned "supervote". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Richard, please review WP:Copying within Wikipedia, in particular the following:

"Not everything copied from one Wikipedia page to another requires attribution. . . . Content rewritten in one's own words does not need attribution. However, duplicating material by other contributors that is sufficiently creative to be copyrightable under US law (as the governing law for Wikipedia), requires attribution.

In this case, the need for a restoration of article history for attribution purposes as a justification for restoring the article edit history is a massive red herring. For the transfer of two or three sentences of substantive content, re-writing the transferred content in a manner sufficient to avoid close-paraphrasing completely obviates the need for attribution (see above quote and link). Clearly, Cunard is a capable writer, and fully able to rephrase two or three sentences in his own words. Once again, we are trying to justify overturning a clear and proper AfD consensus decision for reasons that are not even required under the policies cited. Before you quote policy to others, it would behoove you to read and understand those policies in some detail. Paraphrasing the limited content to be transferred is the far simpler solution, and does not require overturning a proper AfD consensus, the unnecessary restoration of article history, fully protecting a redirect on questionable grounds, or a sketchy interpretation of policy that requires the preservation of article history under all conceivable circumstances. Usually, the simplest solution is the best one. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, do not restore- Consensus to delete was clear. Generally, a consensus-based close should be overturned only if the closer has made a mistake in judging it, or the situation changes dramatically afterward. That's not the case here. I suggest that, instead of starting a DRV, it would have been easier for Cunard to just take the references (either from the cached copy, or by asking an admin to email them) and write the content in his own words. AfD result upheld, content written, copyright requirements adhered to. Everyone should be happy. Reyk _YO! 15:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
endorse, restore, redirect and protect. It achieves the same outcome as deletion but keeps us meeting our license. Alternatively, if desired, I believe it is considered acceptable to use deleted material as long as you cite everyone in the edit history that contributed to the article. I'd like a second opinion on that, but I believe that also meets the letter (and probably most of the intent) of the CC BY-SA License. Disagree with Reyk here: asking someone else to rewrite everything (even just a few sentences) for sake of policy is silly. Though of Reyk wants do do the rewrite (or anyone else) that's fine too. Dirtlawyer1 has certainly spent way (way) more time writing things here than doing that would take... Hobit (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hobit, it's not my obligation to re-write two or three sentences of text for a clearly capable writer. My objection here is that we are using these trivial needs for the transfer of a small amount of content into a reason for overturning a perfectly valid AfD close when a much simpler solution is readily available, and we are inventing a non-existent policy (preserve article history whenever possible is not the same as preserve article content when reasonably possible), as well as ignoring those policies that do exist -- i.e., there is no valid justification for preemptive, indefinite full page protection under WP:FPP, nor is there any real impediment to paraphrasing two or three sentences of content to be added to the related article per WP:Copying within Wikipedia. This is simply an excuse to try to further establish a precedent in favor of a new "policy" that has no explicit textual basis in existing policy, and it should be opposed on principle for that reason alone. As I said above, the simplest resolution to the "problem" presented by the OP is not the one requested. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not his job either. The text is there and if we have to have it undeleted to use it, I don't see the problem. I'm open to other solutions, but as a general rule, my feeling is that anyone who shouts "It's easy, just do it" should be prepared to either do it or should shut up. You do make a good point about our protection policies. But I think my alternative solution fixes everything. Your thoughts on that? Hobit (talk) 01:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 81: / Line 81: @@
 ::::::::A true lawyer! '''Do''' delete history because it is '''not''' mentioned in [[WP:Editing policy]] and [[WP:Deletion review]]. '''Don't''' do any alternatives because they are '''not''' mentioned in [[WP:Protection policy]]. You do see your flawed logic ... right? --[[User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )|Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )]] ([[User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )|talk]]) 00:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 :::::::::There is no flawed logic, Richard, and your taunts are not becoming to a 56-year-old adult.  "Delete and redirect" has been a perfectly valid !vote and AfD outcome for all of my six and a half years editing Wikipedia.  The place to argue for the alternatives you seek was in the AfD; you don't get to overturn a valid AfD consensus because you don't like it.  [[User:Dirtlawyer1|Dirtlawyer1]] ([[User talk:Dirtlawyer1|talk]]) 00:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
+{{unindent}} What's definitely not okay is to delete the history and then re-use the content.  See [[WP:RUD]].  The real expert on this area is [[User:Flatscan]], who sadly no longer edits, but he gave us a lot of wisdom on this point historically and looking at his contribution history will uncloak quite a lot of subtle thought about attribution in relation to deleted content.  I also think it's plausible that in relation to close paraphrasing of deleted material, there's a gulf between behaviour that's technically within the rules, and behaviour that's up to the expected standards we enforce at DRV.  This part of the encyclopaedia does have standards, and custom and practice, that's not written down and has to be learned through experience.  It's also not particularly constrained; deletion review is the "highest court", to use a decidedly inappropriate metaphor, and so it has wide latitude to come to decisions which improve the encyclopaedia's deletion processes.  Generally, I would repeat my suggestion to Dirtlawyer1 that for his first little while at Deletion Review it would be appropriate to use a little less of the imperative and the emphatic declarative, and a little more of the interrogative, when speaking to those with a lot of experience here.—[[User:S Marshall|<font face="Verdana" color="Maroon">'''S Marshall'''</font>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 02:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * '''Endorse''', but undelete history to allow a selective merge, protect the title to enforce the decision to delete.  The undeletion of the history is good practice for proper WP:Copyright compliance.  Wikipedia internally should definitely err on the side of overcompliance if it wants any credibility in asking downstream users to respect its copyrights.  The AfD was found to have a consensus for deletion, as a matter of Wikipedia-notability, but there was inadequate consideration of reuse of some sourced material elsewhere.  Given that Cunard has read the deleted article, he is influenced by it, and so its authors require attribution should cunard add anything from it to another article.  Dirtlawyer1's suggestion of obtaining a copy of the deleted article and proceeding without ongoing attribution violates WP:Copyrights, both the spirit and the letter.  While attribution workarounds are possible, such as a null edit pointing to a talk page section naming the authors or reused deleted content, it is not reasonable to expect downstream users to honour that, downstream users will reasonably rely on the author list provided by the "Download as PDF" tool.  --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 04:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 :*{{Ping|SmokeyJoe}} Please review the circumstances under which indefinite full page protection is available per [[WP:FPP]].  My reading of our page protection policy is that full page protection is not available for redirects, let alone indefinite full page protection.  "Delete" means "delete," not "selective merge, with a redirect and restoration of article history under the redirect".  It is axiomatic that every merge is a selective merge, and a "merge" outcome was considered during the AfD and rejected by the AfD consensus in favor of a "delete" outcome.  It is not DRV's remit to overturn a properly decided consensus outcome; that's no different than an administrator "super vote" disregarding the consensus in closing the AfD.  In the absence of an AfD consensus "merge" closing, the same net result may be achieved by obtaining a copy (or a copy of selected sections of the deleted article) and re-writing or paraphrasing any substantive content to be included in the target article.  Standard format citations are generally not considered creative content and may be recycled without change.  [[User:Dirtlawyer1|Dirtlawyer1]] ([[User talk:Dirtlawyer1|talk]]) 05:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)