Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 February 14: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 04:20, 15 February 2012

< 2012 February 13

Deletion review archives: 2012 February

2012 February 15 >

14 February 2012

Mawashi Protective Clothing

This article was speedily deleted for G11: "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". However, Mawashi Protective Clothing is an organization that should be considered notable, because it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Here are some examples:

Thereby, if you consider these external source of information as reliable, could you consider undeleting this page? I will be waiting for your comments, and thank you for your consideration. Shareitnow (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review ' DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article was not deleted by lack of a claim to importance, though it could have been; it was deleted as being exclusively promotional, and incapable of improvement through normal editing. I delete a great many promotional articles, and usually a promotional G11 speedy deletion is an article making purely advertising-style or Press-release style vague claims supported only by flowery adjectives, rather than giving information; as is obvious from inspection, this one is different: it's a mere product list making no claims at all besides that the company makes the products listed, and their plainly stated suitability for certain uses. But Wikipedia is not a product catalog, and there is no encyclopedic information present. I'm not entirely sure this meets the usual understanding of the G11 Promotional criterion. But I am sure that in its present form it could not possibly stay in Wikipedia--the need for this sort of material is adequately served by the company's web site. Of the references given, the only one that could be used for showing notability is the 3rd, which is a full article in a reliable news site about one of the products; the others could be used, but do not show notability : the 4th is too unsubstantial; the first two merely show the product was considered by the Canadian government for development support; the 5th is a listing of a presentation at a trade show. I think the article could be rewritten and might have a chance at AfD--but not in its present form. It might be better to start over. DGG ( talk ) 02:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul J. Alessi

This article was speedily deleted for CSD G4: "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion.". The description of the criteria required for deletion via this rule are as follows: "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content moved to user space for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy)."

I would like to appeal this deletion. The original cause of the deletion of this article was CSD G12: "Unambiguous copyright infringement.", as the prior author of the article had only copy/pasted information from other websites. I did a major revision so that the article had no such violation; all of the writing was original, no copy/pasting. Yet it was still deleted under CSD G4. I have both the original author's old and my new scripts saved to my computer, if anyone would like to confirm and review that they are indeed substantially different.

Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Trismosin (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The CSD G12 was in 2009. It was deleted at AFD in 2010 for not establishing notability.[1] Was the version recently deleted different from the 2010 version? I see you have informed the deleter, Fastily, of this DRV. I think you should have also tried to discuss the matter with him before DRV. Thincat (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, I have both the 2009 scripts and 2010 scripts on my computer. Mine was a substantial rewrite. It included a rewritten bio, reference links, a full filmography, etc... As for discussing it with Fastily first, I was following the instructions on his talk page. There's a section at the top that says "Are you here because I deleted your Article or File? If so, please click here.". For the reason for deletion provided, he gave the following instructions -- [2], which told me to talk about it here. --Trismosin (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are absolutely right. My apologies. Despite Fastily's seeming reluctance to have people raise such matters on his talk page (unless he made a "mistake" etc.), very many people raise issues there and he sometimes reverses his decisions. Anyway, in this case you were indeed referred here directly which I think is a shame. At present I am more persuaded by what you say than by Fastily's deletion rationale. Thincat (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you for that. I had put a fair amount of effort in to fixing that article so that it would comply with Wikipedia regulations, and was rather disappointed when I saw that it had been taken down this morning. I hope the decision will be repealed. I'm willing to fix any issues in that article that may have warranted its deletion. It seems a shame to throw the entire thing away for small discrepancies. Again, thank you for your time and consideration. --Trismosin (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
temporarily restored the entire history for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As said above, the most recent AfD in 2010 was for lack of notability , not copyvio. The career is not in a field where I can judge, but there seems not to be significant additional accomplishments in the current version as compared to the one deleted in the 3rd AfD. The material has been moved around, and some of the excessive early bio shortened, though an non- encyclopedic section on personal life remains. But it does meet the requirements for G4--I cannot see that the notability concerns were addressed. Here's the comparison: [3] Possibly the career would be judged notable if the AfD were done over. Possibly there is something additional to say. It would help to say now clearly what it is. (Of course, Fastily should have explained this in the first place; usually his deletions are well-justified, and when he does give a full explanation, they are usually both convincing and helpful). DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, how would I go about improving the notability? I don't mean to seem impertinent, but there appears to me to be a fair amount more verifiable information on this page than some of the others here on Wikipedia. For example, this one. --Trismosin (talk) 03:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salvador Tercero

The AfD was closed early due to speedy deletion as G7 (author requests deletion). In this particular case, I believe the article was a useful article on a notable recording professional, and that the subject of the article pressured the author into requesting deletion (edit summary read "deleting bio due to unauthorized info"). It would set a disturbing precedent if we allow biographical articles to be deleted just because their subjects don't like them, without any discussion. (Note: I did not discuss this with the closing administrator because I want to establish a broader consensus around the issue of G7 cases similar to this one, although I did invite them to participate in the discussion.) Dcoetzee 03:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse with no prejudice against immediately recreating the article, just as G7 would, in almost all cases, bear with it no similar prejudice. G7 lets the author of an article request deletion of his/her article so long as no other editors have made meaningful contributions. The article's author retains that "right," as it were, until the article's deletion would involve deleting someone else's work. While I certainly agree that biographical articles shouldn't be deleted just because their subjects don't like them, in this case the biographical article is being deleted because the author's article requested deletion. That should be a cut and dry distinction with no room for subjective judgment or inference, just like G7. If someone else wants to write an article on Salvador Tercero, that's fine and dandy. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the speedy because the terms of G7 were met (I am assuming what has been said about the history). The risk of deletion due to improper pressure is mitigated because anyone is able to recreate even using the material verbatim, with proper attribution. The licence to do this is still in effect. The article visible in the cache could reasonably have been speedied as "no indication of importance". Thincat (talk) 11:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. G7 exists so authors can correct their mistakes before they become permanently embedded. I have declined G7s when I think the topic is worth writing about and can be written about; I have deleted them when it seems better that the article should never have been started or needs to be re-started. It should not be regarded as an entitlement. This is especially true when the reason is given as here. If the original author feels it unwise to continue, they can of course do not have to continue, but someone else can take over. Subjects requesting the deletion of their own article should never have been included in BLP policy as other than a very exceptional case. I've closed a few such as delete when there really is reason to make an exception because of hopelessly disproportionate coverage that would violate Do no harm. But most of the time, it's mere embarrassment--which,though real enough, is not something we can consider without it shading into the much worse situation of the subject disagreeing with the contents of the article. When there is reason for the subject to validly disagree, the proper procedure is OTRS, which I think handles all justifiable cases sympathetically--though the justifiable cases are a relatively small proportion of the complaints. DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that what is meant by "in good faith," in the G7 description? Otherwise, I can't really see anything in G7 that backs up making the kind of judgment call you're describing, DGG. But my question is a sincere one: if that's what is meant by "in good faith," then perhaps you have a point. Also entirely possible there's some other factor I'm not considering. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly possible that the scenario Dcoetzee suggests was right, i.e. that the subject had a way of putting pressure on the author. It's also possible that the information in that article wasn't in the public domain; maybe the author was a friend, relative or employee of the subject. In such circumstances, we definitely do want the author to be able to retract something they come to view as their mistake. The risk is that someone could suffer negative consequences as a result of their editing activities. We can't eliminate that completely, but I think that we need to protect our contributors to the maximum extent we can.

However, there's a balance to be struck. Some editors, such as me, choose to use their real name for editing Wikipedia. Others, also such as me, put personally identifying information on their userpage and unequivocally indicate that they are adults. By doing so we are voluntarily accepting the consequences of their edits; we're effectively waiving the right to retract. But some editors are children, some are vulnerable people, so if we don't know who the editor is, our default position should be to assume that we need to protect them as much as we can.—S Marshall T/C 22:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Using G7 is not a safe way of satisfying do no harm, because it is too easy to re-create the article, deliberately or inadvertantly. If there is a true BLP problem, the article should be deleted under an appropriate reason, (either G3 vandalism or G10, abuse of the subject). The reason for this does not need to be made public on Wikipedia-- WP:OTRS exists for the purpose of dealing with these matters confidentially, and those of us who work there will always do what is necessary on a genuine case (although the majority requests there for deletion of material are not justified by WP policy, and the request is declined, with a full explanation). DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jaume Cañellas Galindo

I closed this AFD as delete per no significant coverage in sources. Two users, User:Samen54 and User:Winterfree2000 (not blocked at the time) requested that I restore it. I suggested they create drafts of the page in their userspace. I had an es.wiki sysop who is familar with en.wiki notability and reliable sources guidelines review the sources and the article and confirmed that it met en.wiki guidelines and I restored the article. Later, User:EEng, User:Kinu, and User:Xtv have all approached me with concerns about restoring the article ranging from article does not assert notability, users must be socks, and sources are not reliable. This has become a bit of a mess now so I'd appreciate it if I could get a wider review. v/r - T P 01:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

wouldn't the simplest thing be to just nominate it for AfD again and discuss it there. ? DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bittergrey/CAMH_Promotion

This user-space list of diffs seems to have been speedy-deleted without discussion. DGG, the nominator, had elsewhere stated that he was not neutral and "too involved"[4]. The list was less than a week old. I was gathering the diffs to have a more objective answer to a question asked to me at WP:COI/N.

I understand that a non-neutral admin might not like what the diffs conveyed, especially when viewed collectively. I also understand that since they are diffs, not RS's, what they convey should not be edited into mainspace articles. However, I believe this user-space list about a Wikipedia-related matter does not require deletion, much less speedy-delete without discussion. BitterGrey (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just take a look at it. (If you're not an admin, I can email you the contents). Accumulation of material for attack on another editor. Does anyone thinks I should send it to MfD to call attention to it,which I suppose is what BG is trying to accomplish? Does anyone want to take the responsibility for blocking the person who's been accumulating this? As BG says, I'm too involved to do that myself, and certainly too involved to act as a mediator. But I'm not too involved to delete an attack p. DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, would you care to detail why those diffs are really so dangerous? Diffs keep us anchored in what really happened. Regarding "accumulation of material for attack on another editor," this is an assumption of bad faith, a violation of WP:AGF. An admin should know better.

Also, please provide diffs for your comments on my talk page, DGG. I'm pretty sure you've made at least two errors[5], but can't be sure since you didn't provide any diffs.

As for attack pages, DGG, I notice you haven't deleted these two[6][7].BitterGrey (talk) 03:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since diffs are often, and reasonably, demanded for dispute resolution, it can be appropriate to create relevant lists. However, precedent seems to be that some such lists should not be kept on-wiki and I can go along with this. In this case a second admin performed the deletion. If BitterGrey has now lost his work, DGG should be (and I think is) willing to email it to BG for maintenance offline. Thincat (talk) 11:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Three seconds. Fastily made 42 deletions in that two-minute period and is currently being discussed at ANI. Regarding this diff list, there was no discussion, and no indication that he gave more than 3-seconds of thought to the deletion. He probably went just by DGG's conclusion, not realizing that DGG wasn't neutral. Unlike DGG, I won't assume a hostile intent: Fastily's deletion was probably in good faith, but not given enough thought.

My preference would be to keep the list on-wiki, if only to keep DGG and friends from calling it an 'off-wiki attack.' Of course, this history should be available: I think attempts to hide this history are indications that someone has something to hide. BitterGrey (talk) 14:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- At this point, after the attack on my neutrality above, I agree that I should not take any further admin actions. Like many others involved in this subject, I started out neutral--not just neutral, but initially ignorant of the issues. Having learned the issues, I remain sympathetic to all parties involved. But having dealt with the people, and tried as hard as I could to keep a matter that involve not just on-wiki but RW charges affecting personal and academic integrity, I have remained I think on the whole neutral until now, though not from now on. Now experiencing the attitude of one of the people involved, it is clear that my efforts at urging restraint have clearly not succeeded. (I should explain that this is not a case of people resorting to off wiki action to support editing here, but the opposite--a RW debate (if debate is not too polite a word) that has carried over here). I therefore suggest to BG that I will restore the page if BG wishes to promptly proceed to try for a proper resolution of the matter, presumably via RfC, though I expect it will go further. DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, please learn the difference between quoting what you wrote (with diff) and an "attack." This antagonistic negativity isn't helping anyone. If you are willing to restore the page, that would be great. However, given the breadth of the patterns that emerged, I'm not going to commit to any particular timeline to 'fix' everything. Rushing to do so would be, at best, disruptive. My goal is transparency: I used Wikipedia histories to build a bigger picture - something anyone can do if they put the time into it. No secrets, no accusations, just history. If Wikipedia collectively knows about that history and the consensus is not to care, that would be fine. Of course, that should be the collective decision, not yours or mine. BitterGrey (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Collecting diffs of this sort without using them has normally been held to be an attack. The general feeling has been it leads to increased disharmony. Viewing it that way isn't my private decision, it's part of the practices i'm supposed to be enforcing. either you want this resolved, or you want to continue to build up resentment. There are only two proper things do with disputes of this nature: to ask the help of the community to settle them, or to not let them interfere with the editing. In the one case, you want the diffs to use them in a regular process. In the other case, you don't need them on-wiki. Your choice. To insist on having them here without wanting to use them shows a desire to continue the sort of hostility that amounts to personal attacks. You brought this here. I always recommend acting as if everyone were friends to a certain extent for the sake of the encyclopedia, and not pursuing matters. That remains my advice. But if you can't do that, or even if you don't want to do that for whatever reasons, that's why we have the procedures for resolving the conflicts. I don't think it reasonable to have it both ways: to encourage dissension, but refuse to settle it. DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "You brought this here."[8] and "a RW debate (if debate is not too polite a word) that has carried over here"[9]. DGG, please substantiate or retract your diffless statements. Again, I think you need to get your facts straight. This is an on-wiki matter about Wikipedia content. BitterGrey (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- No discussion. Nominator has been "too involved"[10] for several months, mistakenly seems to think this is RW problem, and is not assuming good faith. Deleter did so in 3 seconds.BitterGrey (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: while patrolling CAT:CSD I saw that page (and two similar ones) tagged as attack pages, and thought about them for more than an hour. As more than seven hours elapsed from tagging to deletion, a number of other admins must have looked at them too. When Fastily deleted them, I was drafting a reply declining the speedy, saying that I did not consider they fell within the definition of WP:CSD#G10, that they could be taken to MfD under WP:UP#POLEMIC, but that even there I thought, as they were less than three days old, their author could mount a defence under the clause that says "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner." DGG, is there more than meets the eye here? Why do you think that clause does not apply? JohnCD (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted my deletion, and have sent it to MfD for a community discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bittergrey/CAMH Promotion. I have nominated it, but will not be discussing it further. (I think the clause does not apply because the user has said, above, they will not commit to using it promptly) DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 70: / Line 70: @@
 *'''Keep'''- No discussion.  Nominator has been "too involved"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Off2riorob&diff=prev&oldid=443422015] for several months, mistakenly seems to think this is RW problem, and is not assuming good faith.  Deleter did so in 3 seconds.[[User:Bittergrey|BitterGrey]] ([[User talk:Bittergrey|talk]]) 20:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 *'''Comment: '''while patrolling CAT:CSD I saw that page (and two similar ones) tagged as attack pages, and thought about them for more than an hour. As more than seven hours elapsed from tagging to deletion, a number of other admins must have looked at them too. When Fastily deleted them, I was drafting a reply declining the speedy, saying that I did not consider they fell within the definition of [[WP:CSD#G10]], that they could be taken to MfD under [[WP:UP#POLEMIC]], but that even there I thought, as they were less than three days old, their author could mount a defence under the clause that says "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] process, is permitted ''provided'' it will be used in a timely manner." DGG, is there more than meets the eye here? Why do you think that clause does not apply? [[User:JohnCD|JohnCD]] ([[User talk:JohnCD|talk]]) 20:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
-*'''I have reverted my deletion, and  have sent it to MfD for a community discussion at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bittergrey/CAMH Promotion]]. I have nominated it, but will not be discussing it further. (I think the clause does not apply because the user has said, above,  they will not commit to using it promptly) '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 04:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
+*'''I have reverted my deletion, and  have sent it to MfD for a community discussion at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bittergrey/CAMH Promotion]].''' I have nominated it, but will not be discussing it further. (I think the clause does not apply because the user has said, above,  they will not commit to using it promptly) '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 04:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)