Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 February 9
Its larger than several other chess sites that have articles. Wikipedia needs to consistently enforce its policy, either deleting all the other chess website pages, or allowing chess.com equal attention.
Article has been subject to several inappropriate administrator actions, by editors involved in contention that is somewhat being addressed in a current Arbitration. (The restoration of this article is not to be determined in the arbitration; it is a content decision for editors here, i believe.) Comments about the previous contention are not particularly needed, but the article needs to be restored. It was deleted by administrator Nyttend 2 or 3 times (by moves to userspace or outright deletions, though history has been rev-deleted and history no longer shows full actual history). The validity of the original article has been discussed at Deletion Review: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 January 4. It has since again deleted by administrator SarekOfVulcan.
Background: Original reason for Nyttend to delete was invalid (article did not contain copyvio, it contained a 10-word quote as to why the property was NRHP-listed, which never could reasonably be considered as a copyvio). Original article did have an error (the quote applied to a different property, the one just before it in the source, due to garbled google results I received and/or call it an editing mistake on my part) but the article simply should have been edited to remove that. The article never should have been deleted.
Nyttend closed the DRV favorably for themself. IMO, it was wrong for Nyttend to perform the close, as the original deleter and an involved party, unless the decision would have been to fully restore the article. Instead, Nyttend was petty in merely restoring the article to Userspace, and also in not fully restoring it. That was not the consensus of discussion. The prevailing consensus, by my interpretation, was that the deletions were wrong and that the article should be restored, and that Nyttend could bring it to AFD if Nyttend wished (though an AFD for an obviously valid topic would fail of course). I think that Nyttend meant simply to be petty by moving it to userspace, and did not mean to imply the topic was not valid, and expected me to restore the article to mainspace (which i later did).
Then, in the deletion review, I edited to unclose the closure, as I have observed other editors doing when a close is not satisfactory. For one thing, the Talk page needed to be restored. Second, the proper decision was restore not move to userspace. And, the restoration to the userspace was inappropriate in reflecting inappropriate use of REVDEL to delete perfectly okay-by-policy material and edit history (the original quote and later corrections, not ever a copyvio). My edits were reverted by editor SarekOfVulcan, party to arbitration and long-involved in contention, with edit summary "discussion is closed, reverting later additions". Well the discussion was not closed adequately, and deleting others' discussion, especially by a highly involved party, should not be tolerated. SarekOfVulcan has repeatedly followed me and refactored in ANI incidents and other noticeboards in ways that change the visible record.
Anyhow, the article was restored to userspace, and, being a valid topic, I moved it to mainspace. SarekOfVulcan then moved it back to userspace, asserting in edit summary that the DRV decision was to restore to userspace. And in next edit SarekOfVulcan move-protected it. These were 2 administrative actions that SarekOfVulcan, as an involved long-term contender should not engage in, and these were mis-interpretations of the DRV and the role of DRV in general.
Thus, this new request to restore the article, to reverse the previous deletions. I don't care terribly about restoring the incorrect quote, but technically a full restoration including the quote in the edit history would be proper. Per the previous discussion, please note the topic is valid and there is no acceptable reason to ever have deleted it, much less keep it deleted. doncram 19:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Is the copyvio text the only issue with the article? Based on the current userspace article, it looks really really non-notable, but there could of course be notability that isn't reflected in that version of the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- We have generally held NHRP listing to be sufficient evidence of notability. Mangoe (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Really? There's well over a million NHRP buildings, and thousands more each year, some of which are certainly notable but quite a lot of them are literally just someone's old house. You may be thinking of World Heritage Sites, which are quite different. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- We have generally held NHRP listing to be sufficient evidence of notability. Mangoe (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)