Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 September 28

The deleting admin, David Gerard, misapplied WP:G4. The new article is substantially different from the deleted version, and the reason for the prior deletion no longer applies. All crypto-related and interview-based references were removed, and the subject was recently substantially and independently covered in The Wall Street Journal. Following 18 months of Bloomberg, Fox, Royal Gazette and other coverage, and the subject surely achieves WP:GNG. Nixie9✉ 13:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article was substantially the same as the version deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diamond Standard for being based on interviews. Nixie9 recreated it based on a new reference from WSJ! ... which was another interview. That is, the precise sort of reference the article was deleted for. If he did not realise the WSJ article constituted just yet another interview, he may not be competent to assess sources suitably.

In that AFD, Nixie9 repeatedly just failed to understand how everyone else was judging sources.

The editor has edited on no other topics in the past year. (Contributions, deleted contributions.) At User_talk:Nixie9#November_2019, I asked Nixie9 if he had a commercial conflict of interest, and he said no. However, he did go on to claim a conspiracy of administrators against him to delete the article.

I suggested that if Nixie really wanted the article, that he create it through AFC, and not base any of the sources on interviews.

Nixie9 has created this same article repeatedly, and it was deleted three times before today by multiple admins. A previous DRV suggested salting the article. Today was the fourth deletion, and that's why I salted it against recreation. I have suggested that Nixie9 please consider that perhaps he's doing this wrong - David Gerard (talk) 13:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should note also that Diamond Standard, and Nixie9's edits on it, are blockchain-related, so are under the restrictions detailed at WP:GS/Crypto - he was previously notified of the restrictions in late 2019, but promptly deleted the notice from his talk page - David Gerard (talk) 13:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard brings a lot of unwarranted opinion, defensiveness, accusations, and hyperbole to this discussion. Baggage that should lead him to let others take the lead on the DRV and AfD. The company is not a crypto company. As noted in a front page, filling 3/4 of a page, WSJ article, the company has approval for CFTC licensed futures and options, and an active SEC filing for an ETF on the NYSE. Not that DG bothered to learn anything before rapid-deleting. I suggest that admins evaluate for themselves. Nixie9✉ 13:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- p.s. If the subject is not WP:GNG, why does DG feel it necessary to tar me with conspiracy theory claims, denigration about posting frequency, and insinuation about connections? I've created dozens of articles over 8 years, and now I have a job. I find this particular subject fascinating, because DIAMONDS!. Nixie9✉ 14:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Nixie9 I suggest limiting the discussion to the merits of the article, and not to accusations or comments about other editors here. David Gerard is a very experienced, long term editor with a good reputation here. He may be mistaken in some cases, as all of us may, but I am confident he is doing what he thinks best to improve the encyclopedia. I hope you will do your best to the same goal. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Restore as Draft I was notified of this DRV on my talk page by Nixie9, I suppose because I commented in the AfD on a previous version of this article -- which I had completely forgotten. But since I am pretty regular in reading and commenting on DRV posts, I am sure I would have seen this and commented in any case. I looked at the most recent deleted version (and I will be happy to do a temp undelete if any non-admin wants to see it). Many of the sources are indeed interviews or seem to be based largely on info from the company, and are therefore not independent, and should not count towards the GNG. (I do not, however, think it fair to describe most of them as "Churnlism".) The recent WSJ article is behind a paywall. I can only see the opening lines, but they do not seem like the start of an interview piece. It is at https://www.wsj.com/articles/easy-diamond-trading-set-to-be-available-for-first-time-11600680611 in case anyone has access. The royal gazette article dated 23 Sept 2020 refers to and quotes the WSJ piece several times. It does not make it sound like an interview piece. Note that merely quoting a company spokesperson or CEO does not make an article an interview if there is also independent reporting. However, even if the WSJ article is considered to be fully independent, that is just one source. I am not sure that the other cited sources in the deleted article are enough to clearly pass the GNG. It seems that the company Diamond Standard has yet to start full operatrions. When it does so, there may well be significant additional coverage. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. My suggestion is that the deleted article be restored and promptly moved to Draft, until such time as development of the draft can convince an uninvolved admin, or a future DRV discussion, to unsalt the title in mainspace. The draft may be put through the AfC process, indeed I think that would be a good idea, but that should not be mandatory. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that it's my AFD close that's up for discussion but since Nixie9 apparently isn't contesting it I have no comments. If I am wrong feel free to point it out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus The issue raised by Nixie9 , seems to be whether the version recently deleted as a recreation under G4 is or is not substantially simialr to the version you deleted after the AfD or not. You might have a view on that point, and on whether the addition of the WSJ article makes a significant difference. Or, of course, you might not. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, well, I went ahead and temp undeleted for the discussion. I don't have an opinion at the moment, but I'll suggest to Nixie9 that the most successful practice at DRV for cases deleted on notability grounds is to identify the three best sources for establishing notability. Wily D 16:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse either the AFD or the G4. Any appeal to DRV that consists mostly of insulting one of the admins will get only cursory attention. This appeal consists mostly of insulting User:David Gerard, and that isn't useful. The title isn't salted in draft space. If a draft is submitted for review, the reviewer ~~should be given~~ has an undeleted copy of the deleted article to compare. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]